Unanimous Verdict vs. Majority Rules Verdicts

This amendment was introduced after the Bruce Burrell case (2005) where, after two weeks of deliberations, all jurors were firmly in favor of one verdict except for one who was firmly against the majority verdict. The case illustrated the vulnerabilities of the previous jury system in creating a time and cost ineffective measure of trialing defendants where justice was not necessarily achieved. Another recent reform is the passing of legislation in 2006 which provided three additional ‘spare’ jurors to be empanelled on lengthy criminal trials for example in the case R v. Wood. These recent reforms in legislation have led to the jury system being more cost and time effective in the criminal trial. Allowing a majority vote instead of strict unanimous verdict reduces the risk of a hung jury and hence prevents jury bribing and jury disagreements. By avoiding a retrial, the criminal trial process saves huge amounts of time and money for all individuals involved and hence maintains the integrity of the jury system. Equally, allowing spare jurors in lengthy trials is hugely cost and time effective as retrials are often avoided in the case where there is misconduct amongst the jurors.

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

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

This ensures that equality and fairness is shown throughout the case meaning that everyone has a fair trial. Fairness is shown by the jury through any jury members who know anything about the case being removed from the panel, any irrelevant information being disregarded (the Judges discretion) etc before the case has started. This fairness is also shown through any prejudice being flushed out through the unanimous decision needed to be made by the Jury panel. This means that all twelve jury members need to reach a verdict that agrees with all members. This is shown through the State vs Julian Knight case.

Juries are a crucial and irreplaceable part of the American justice system. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers viewed jury service as a critical part of democracy and self government. Twelve ordinary citizens make up the jury and will form a decision about the case. The jury system is still needed in the twenty-first century because it ensures the accused gets a fair trial and it promotes civic participation.

The role of the jury is to decide whether or not the accused is guilty or not. They have the responsibility of deciding if the relevant facts of the trials are true. The jury consist of 12 members of the public. One juror is selected as a foreman by the jury before the case starts. They then act as an informal chairperson and spokesman for the jury.

Mexican repatriation involved forceful deportation of Mexicans and Mexicans American from the United States. The enforcers of the deportation branded it as repatriation movement to make it seem that Mexicans and Mexicans Americans were doing so willingly. The federal government pressure to move the families of Mexican origin back to their mother country mainly came from county and city governments. However, claims that all these individuals were Mexican were invalid. It is because more than seventy percent of these persons were American citizens since they were born in America, and others had intermarried and started families there (Calderón, pg 221, 1998).

The responsibility of the jury in criminal and civil cases is to “determine questions of fact” and apply law as set out by the judge and then, with these facts and evidence, come up with a verdict.

All the jury must agree on a verdict, if this is not possible then the

As these lists have grown the number of cases that are tried by a jury

The jury is the finder of fact, and they are placed in a position that is responsible for deciding the truth to the story in the courtroom. When the jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” even though the defendant is guilty of the crime that they committed is called jury nullification. This is where the fate is in the jury’s hands, and the jury believes that a law that the defendant was charged with is either immoral or the law was wrongly applied to the defendant, so the jury effectively nullifies the verdict. The power to nullify a verdict is clearly given to the jurors and once a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty.” The verdict that the jury rendered cannot be changed or questioned by the courts, and there cannot be a retrial under 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

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

The Constitution states “[i]n all criminal cases the defendant has the right to be tried by a jury of 12 whose verdict must be unanimous.” In the federal court system, a jury must be unanimous, whether the case is civil or criminal; while in the state

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.