Jury Defense Research Paper

For this essay I asked my Grandma Diane questions about jury duty. She has never served on a jury but she has been summonsed to questioning to possibly be on one. When she got the summons letter she wasn’t excited, “ I didn’t want to do it, because I didn’t feel that I [had] the right to judge anyone else,” and didn’t really want to go. She got asked questions like, “Could you be impartial? Could you be fair? If “this” happened would you say that the person is guilty? Are you related to the person/persons involved? Have you heard anything about the case?,” the attorneys asked these questions because they wanted to make sure they had a jury that would make an unbiased decision in the court case. My grandma said that, “It made [her] respect what

In the United States, we let the people decide – not who the president will be, though. We let everyday people decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. The jury system has been around for ages (dating back hundreds of years in England) and probably will be for a long time. But is the system still working? Is it worth it? Should we continue to use juries to decide cases? The jury system shouldn’t remain an option because jurors tend to be incompetent, it’s not really worth the effort, and jurors aren’t professionally educated to decide on these cases.

Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.

Conflict between the US and Mexico began with Mexico's and Texas’s differences caused them to clash leaving to Texans’ war for independence from Mexico, which they gained in 1836. Texas then asked the US for annexation, which the US refuse the first two times, but them in 1845 the US annexed Texas. After the annexation of Texas Mexico and the United States had different perspectives, leading to the border dispute where US-Mexican troops fought, and hence that came to the US-Mexican war in 1845. This trial is meant to decide if America’s actions were honorable and justified, or if the United States used its power to manipulate Mexico. Based on all the evidence presented, the jury declared the US to be guilty on the charge of wrongfully provoking a war with Mexico.

With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions either with ps > 0.64.

Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a defendant who it believes is guilty of the crime he is charged (Hickey, 2010. p. 370). This is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. If we are going to allow jury nullification we may as well not take up the tax-payer’s money to even take it to trial. Nullification – The act of making a law null and void (nullifying). For example, during prohibition, many juries found defendants innocent, even when the state had proven its case, because they did not think the law should exist. State legislatures also have nullified federal laws within their borders, creating a nullification crisis for the federal

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

For example, Officer Bates assumed that Andrew Madison was pulling out a knife. He then tried to disarm him without knowing it was a weapon for sure. This resulted to both people getting a cut from a knife ,and Andrew Madison acquired a broken wrist. Another example is when witness statements contradict each other. Officer Tommy Majors said that he didn't remember what he said to Officer Kevin Bates during the time of the incident. On the contrary, Andrew Madison’s friend, James Lincoln, remembers Officer Majors telling the other officer to take it easy while he was trying to wrestle Andrew Madison. As you can see, every little confusing piece can be used against the

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

What is your best idea for a realistic alternative to the traditional jury system in use in criminal trials in the U.S.?

It is advisable to hire a defense attorney as soon as possible, especially if your charges are serious. Make sure that you hire a lawyer that has been in practice for many years. You must also ensure that he has handled many cases that is similar to yours. One way of finding a skilled and reputable attorney is by asking for referrals. You may also search in the World Wide Web and read the online reviews of internet users.

Every week, the team leader must choose a case that has been closed. They have five days to figure out what details in the case which could have by any chance caused a false conviction of an innocent person. They must go through past interviews, witnesses, photos of the crime scenes and any other information that could be in the case files.

Technology and entertainment today have given people a sense of confidence in their understanding of criminal justice. They sit at home on their couch and watch an endless stream of crime dramas and believe they have a solid understanding of how the justice system is run. Television shows do not have to operate in reality, the audience has access to all the necessary information to solve the crime and the show ends with a feeling that justice has been served. In reality, investigations hit road blocks, complications and dead ends. Investigators must sort through honest and dishonest witnesses, determine factual evidence from planted or tampered evidence, and they must ensure that they complete all of their duties, investigations, and documentation completely, accurately and maintain the integrity of the case. Investigations are often susceptible to mistakes, human error and an array of outside factors they have little to no control over. The varying factors in each investigation can sometimes create a situation that ultimately leads to a wrongful conviction. There are also people in the justice system that deliberately fabricate information or evidence, manipulate a situation or witness, or influence the case in some way to achieve the outcome they desire. The prevalence, causes and cases of wrongful convictions play an important role in understanding and preventing wrongful convictions for the innocent and ensuring justice is served to the guilty.

During a trial, there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct that must be observed. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecution. According to one author, “Police, prosecutors, and criminal court Judges see too much crime, so they tend to see crime everywhere. We need rules to control their conduct, Judges to carefully apply those rules, and other Judges to review those decisions (law-article.net).” Courtroom procedures are important because, without them, defendants and prosecution alike could be treated unfairly. These procedures give a standard format for trials that must be followed to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their