Jury Trial

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.

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 As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated.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

Miscarriage of justice is not just framed around contaminated evidence but also by the fact that juries misinterpret information and instructions which result in an incorrect verdict. Voting for the verdict previously had to be unanimous until 2006, when the Juries (Amendment) Act 2006 (NSW). Although majority verdict allows for quicker and easier verdicts, less pressure to conform and eliminates a rogue juror, there has been much criticism as the point of the trial to prove standard of proof that the accused

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.

On one hand many critics argue that the American jury system is no longer a good idea. On the other hand, some may disagree and say the American jury system is still a good idea. According to this view, one can readily agree that the American jury system gives the people a say in what is relevant to today. “The role of jury service in promoting self-governance and civic participation...the United States Constitution viewed jury service as a critically important feature of self-governance and enshrined [guaranteed] the right to serve on juries in the Seventh Amendment” (Document C). While the essence of John Weiser is that the jury system promotes civic participation, such a stance is invalid because their judgement can be clouded. Therefore, even though the American jury system does have its benefits, the jurors choice whether the convicted should be punished can be

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.

Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.

Juries allow and force the public to have a personal knowledge of court proceedings, protect against the bias of a single person, and provide the public with certainty that there is not corruption in our judicial system. No human system of justice is perfect, but I believe that what Benjamin Franklin said regarding the Constitution also applies to our jury system, “It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does” (Benjamin Franklin to the Federal Convention).

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)

A consortium of scholars conducted the Capital Jury Project (CJP), a large scale multistate research initiative in the 1980s, to find out what causes a jury to sentence death to some defendants but not to others. Devine and Kelly (2015) used the full data set of CJP which consisted of 1198 jurors from 335 capital trials held in 14 states. Certain conditions were set and observed for data collection and inclusion or exclusion of some particular factors.

In 2008 Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder of her child Caylee Anthony (document D). She was on a jury trial and that everyone’s opinion was that she did it though she was proven not guilty by twelve men and women. They sought and decided that fairly that she was not guilty those everyone thought she was. In 1872 a man was dismissed for being a juror in a case because he had already had an opinion of the case (document F). The man was asked a series of questions that any other juror would be asked, but he had already formed an opinion. “I think it is really great that we have science, but we also have common sense (Joe Adamson document D). This person may think that science is good, but when it doesn’t help common sense is the go to plan. Without common sense that trial would have been have a disaster. This shows that the American jury system does not take just anyone to be a

To predict a juror’s attitude, the juror’s age is multiplied by w, the Gender score by x, the Education score by y, and the Occupation score by z. These results are then added together. This gives the final sum, CV, which is the predicted attitude for that juror. Since the distribution of attitudes in the population is known, the equation enables one to decide whether a given juror should be challenged off the jury by seeing where his or her score falls in that distribution. The equation can be used to compile the predicted attitude index for each juror under consideration, or alternatively, the data can be used to construct profiles of what relatively positive and negative jurors look like (Berry,

A jury is a group of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 who have been randomly selected from the electoral roll. Juries are only used for indictable criminal offences, these cases are held in either the District or Supreme court.

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.