Jury Process

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

The goal of the American Justice system is to remain unbiased. One way we can achieve unbiased justice is through the jury system. When you are selected for jury service, you must plead to only judge the case based on information presented in court. Judges also appoint jurors who have not formed or expressed opinions about the case (document f).

Jury Nullification is the process that allows members of the juror to acquit a defendant for crimes they do not feel is grounds for punishment. Although, many jurors may not know this is an option to many cases, it is still an option. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. On the other hand, this does interfere with the decision- making process. This paper will explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. It will summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Including contemporary examples of

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

The first phase of a criminal jury trial is focused on selecting specific jurors, which is accomplished through a process referred to as 'voir dire' which is a screening of potential jurors. In the criminal trial involving an offense categorized as a felony "12 jurors and up to six alternate jurors may be chosen." (3rd Judicial District, ) Voir dire of the jury involves the prosecuting and defense attorneys questioning the potential jurors and

Greathouse, she states all criminal defendants, have the right to a fair and impartial jury. In both real life and in the TV series it is accurate how a defendant has the right to a fair and impartial. What makes the O.J. Simpson so different from the TV series is that the trial lasted for over eight months, one of the longest trials ever. The reason why it lasted so long was due to the jury, the jury was frustrated because when they were selected they were informed that it would only be a two month trial, and what also makes it different than everything else was how they kept the jury hostage in a hotel room with no communication. The jury could not see their families, or friends or speak to anyone about the trial or even watch TV, hear the radio or even read magazines. What Greathouse states in her article relate to the reason why the trial lasted longer than it should have due to the reason that a defendant has the right to a fair and impartial jury. During voir dire, the judge and/or attorneys probe potential jury members for pre-existing attitudes or beliefs that would prevent the jurors from fairly evaluating evidence presented during trial. In the

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

Frank, M. (2011). Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study. In review.law.umm.edu. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frank_MLR.pdf

The next process in the Justice system, a Grand Jury indictment, was interrupted. OJ Simpson hired a top notch team of defense and appellate lawyers to defend him in this case and they were able to get the Grand Jury dismissed from this case due to the massive media coverage. They claimed that the jury was prejudiced toward the defendant because of the readily available information about the case. In lieu of the Grand Jury trial a probable cause hearing was conducted. With that, the judge in this hearing felt that enough evidence did exist for a criminal trial and OJ Simpson was arraigned on July 29th 1994. At his arraignment OJ pleaded not guilty, specifically stating that he was “one hundred percent not guilty”.

For the past 45 years in the world of academia only 206 articles were published about jury simulations with the inclusion of jury deliberations (Devine, Clayton, Dunford, Seying & Pryce, 2001). This is a rate of about 4.6 articles per year, a very small number in comparison to all the articles that are published with out jury deliberations. Jury deliberations are an important aspect of juror studies. There has always been ongoing concern amongst researchers about whether jury decision-making can be adequately replicated and studied in the lab. In order to achieve this the focus has often been that if a representable sample is used then the results can be highly generalizable to the public. This paper will attempt to argue that differences between a student sample and community based sample in mock jury studies are minimal and that

The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a

After a long day of work, most people like to go home and relax on the couch, perhaps scarf down some snacks, and turn on the television. Often times, while someone is haphazardly perusing through the channels, he or she might stumble upon a crime drama. Shows such as Criminal Minds, Blue Bloods, and Blindspot, bring out the inner detective in everyone and suddenly the law seems fascinating enough to keep watching. Eventually, the day comes that every active member of our democracy, meaning everyone that votes, must sit through jury duty. However, because of today’s popular media people may seem slightly excited to go. As the jury files into the courtroom, and the trial starts, the jurors realize something… jury duty is nothing like they show on Law and

The right to trial by jury in the modern times originates from twelfth century England during the reign of King Henry II. This system may originate from an “ancient right for an accused to be tried only “by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land”” (Thomas). In the United States, trial by jury is mentioned in Article Three of the Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments. For many people, the jury system seems to be the fairest system and most unbiased way of determining a person’s innocence or guilt. The system is to make sure that all receive fair trial despite their race, gender, national origin, religion, political affiliation, or color. Jury service is distinct in being the only form of civic participation that is required for almost all citizens to perform today. Though as with all things this system is not perfect and still has its own consequences.

The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System The theory behind modern day trial by jury can be traced back some