A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact which then direct the actions of the Judge. The jury trial has been traced back many times with different findings each time. However, for my research I could trace it back as far as Ancient Greece. In 350 BCE Aristotle first described the Athenian jury system. In Aristotle’s description jurors are selected at random and assigned at last minute, then drops their ballot in one out of two jars after hearing both sides of the case. At this time the jurors were expected to know or least have some knowledge of the Athenian law (Soft Schools). Then later on England also establishes a system of law that upholds the jury system. When King John signed the Magna Carta …show more content…
In the Crown Court juries are brought to court for criminal trials in which the offence is indictable, that has first been examined by the magistrates (Wikipedia). The magistrates may even try a case, however the accused has the right to a Crown Court trial including a jury. However, in a case of summary offences there is no right to a Crown Court jury, it is instead tried by the magistrates. Since Pope Innocent III held concern that wrongful convictions were leading to a loss of faith in divine providence, the idea of ‘trial by ordeal’ lost its point (British Library). Trial by ordeal was essentially a test of life or death, meaning innocence was declared by survival. In its place came a system where local men used the method of fact finding to give acceptable verdicts. At first it was only ‘twelve good men and true’, women were not added to this until the last century (British …show more content…
Both parties have the right to appear in court, call witnesses and testify on their behalf. Although most times the defendant will not testify on their own behalf which could lead to self-incrimination. After hearing both sides speak and issues their final arguments, the jury then receives their specific instructions from the judge which vary depending on the circumstances of the case. The jury usually consists of six to twelve jurors (US Courts). They then go to the jury room to begin the deliberation process to find an acceptable verdict. Most states, the first thing is to elect someone as the foreperson (American Bar). Usually the court provides the jury with written forms of any possible verdicts, so when a verdict has been reached, the jury only needs to pick the proper paper to deliver to or read aloud to the judge. In all criminal or federal cases the jury’s decision must absolutely be unanimous, they juries mindset must be “without a reasonable doubt” that the person in guilty or innocence. When jury decisions are not unanimous it is then declared a mistrial, and may be tried again at a later date with a different jury, unless the plaintiff no longer wishes to continue with the case (American
The movie Runaway Jury starts with a shooting in a business office. The movie then continues to people receiving jury summons and people taking pictures of them. It goes on to show Rankin Fitch and the defense committing electronic surveillance during the jury selections. This movie shows how Fitch and the defense attempt to influence the jury to vote for the defense. The movie continuously shows a person by the name of “Marlee” who talks to Fitch and Rohr trying to persuade them to pay her in order for the jury to be “swayed” their way. “Marlee” is Nick Easter’s girlfriend. As the movie progresses, the viewer realizes that Nick was pretended to get avoid jury duty in order to secure a spot in the jury. The movie ends with the jury voting against the gun company and then Nick and “Marlee” blackmailing Fitch with a receipt for $15 million and they demand that he retire immediately. They inform him that the $15 million will benefit the shooting victims in the town of Gardner.
Ever since human civilization came into existence, people have been putting rules in place to determine who is behaving according to social norms and moral values and who is not. Because the majority of Western societies have historically been democratic, it makes sense that the public have a say in the enforcement of said rules. It is for this reason that the trial became a popular means of deciding upon punishment for those perceived to have broken the law, while also allowing them an opportunity to testify against their charges. Socrates underwent this process in 399 BC on charges of impiety and corruption of the youth of Athens , as did Louis Riel in 1885 on charges of treason for leading a Métis rebellion . Although they lived during vastly
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
Seymour Wishman was a former defense lawyer and prosecutor, and the author of "Anatomy of a Jury," the novel "Nothing Personal" and a memoir "Confessions of a Criminal Lawyer." "Anatomy of a Jury" is Seymour Wishman's third book about the criminal justice system and those who participate in it. He is a known writer and very highly respected "person of the law." Many believe that the purpose of this book is to put you in the shoes of not only the defendant but into the shoes of the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer and above all the jury. He did not want to prove a point to anyone or set out a specific message. He simply wanted to show and explain to his readers how the jury system really works. Instead of writing a book solely on the facts on how a jury system works, Wishman decides to include a story so it is easier and more interesting for his readers to follow along with.
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
So the first reading that convinced me having a jury system was a bad idea was document F. This was a passage from a book called Roughing It by Mark Twain. He talks about a murder that happened in Virginia and how a prominent banker and valued citizen was denied to be on the case because he knew about the case beforehand. This circulated in my head and did not make sense to me, the jury would rather be full of unvalued citizens who have no
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
The judicial system we know today has changed in many ways. One of the ways this system changed is how they reach a verdict, In the modern day long investigation have to take place and reliable evidence has to be shown to the court so that there is less chance that the accused could be misjudged unlike the medieval times were it was common that people were misjudged. The medieval period taught us that we have to be sure of which person is guilty and innocent. Unlike believing one Man’s word like the medieval
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
Throughout history, a plethora of different classes of people, cultures, and races have undergone some form of prejudice. Partiality against women has occurred, and continues to occur, in America. Susan Glaspell, author of "A Jury of her Peers," depicts a story of a close-knit community in the process of solving the mystery of a man's death, thought to be caused by his wife. In the investigation of Mr. Wright’s death, the women helping to search through the Wright farm for clues pointing to evidence of Minnie Wright’s murder of her husband were thought of as useless, when in reality, the women were solely responsible for finding and understanding Mrs. Wright's motives for murdering her husband. Glaspell uses imagery and a woman's point of view to depict how a woman may feel bound by limits set by society--- a feeling most easily understood by women who share the same perception of life.
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...