FACTOID # 20: Statistically, Delaware bears more cost of the US Military than any other state.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
   
 
WHAT'S NEW
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Jury trial
Criminal procedure
Criminal trials and convictions
Rights of the accused
Right to a fair trial  · Speedy trial
Jury trial  · Presumption of innocence
Exclusionary rule (U.S.)
Self-incrimination  · Double jeopardy
Verdict
Acquittal  · Conviction
Not proven (Scot.)  · Directed verdict
Sentencing
Mandatory  · Suspended  · Custodial
Dangerous offender (Can.)
Capital punishment  · Execution warrant
Cruel and unusual punishment
Post-conviction events
Parole  · Probation
Tariff (UK)  · Life licence (UK)
Miscarriage of justice
Exoneration  · Pardon
Related areas of law
Criminal defenses
Criminal law  · Evidence
Civil procedure
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right; however most other nations do not recognize it as a fundamental civil liberty, civil right, or human right, because jury trials evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems. Jury trials are of far less importance (or no importance) globally than they are to common law nations. Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... For the Law & Order show, see Law & Order: Trial by Jury. ... Trial by Jury is a comic Gilbert and Sullivan operetta in one act (the only single-act Savoy Opera). ... Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ... Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ... Headline text The rights of the accused is a class of rights in that apply to a person in the time period between when they are formally accused of a crime and when they are either convicted or acquitted. ... The Right to a fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. ... In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial). ... Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted. ... For other uses, see Double jeopardy (disambiguation). ... In law, a verdict indicates the judgment of a case before a court of law. ... In criminal law, an acquittal is the legal result of a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. ... Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. ... In U.S. law, a directed verdict is an order from the judge presiding over a jury trial that one side or the other wins. ... In law, a sentence forms the final act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. ... A mandatory sentence is a judicial decision setting the punishment to be inflicted on a person convicted of a crime where judicial discretion is limited by law. ... A suspended sentence is a legal construct. ... A custodial sentence is a judicial sentence, imposing a punishment (and hence the resulting punishment itself) consisting of mandatory custody of the convict, either in prison (incarceration) or in some other closed therapeutic and/or (re)educational institution, such as a reformatory, (maximum security) psychiatry or drug detoxication (especially cold... In the Canadian legal system, the dangerous offender designation allows the courts to impose an indefinite sentence on a convicted person, regardless of whether the crime carries a life sentence or not. ... Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. ... An execution warrant is a warrant which authorizes the execution or capital punishment of an individual. ... “Cruel And Unusual” redirects here. ... It has been suggested that Medical parole be merged into this article or section. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Under British criminal law, a tariff is the minimum period that a person serving an indefinite prison sentence must serve before that person becomes eligible for parole. ... Life licence is a term used in the British criminal justice system for the conditions under which a prisoner sentenced to life in jail may be released. ... It has been suggested that Exoneration be merged into this article or section. ... Exoneration occurs when a perason waho hars beoen convaicted osf ah crieme irs laeter proved to have been innocent of that crime. ... This article does not adequately cite its references or sources. ... Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a civil action, as opposed to a criminal action). ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: The United States Constitution The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. ... Civil liberties are protections from the power of governments. ... Civil rights or positive rights are those legal rights retained by citizens and protected by the government. ... Civil liberties are protections from the power of governments. ... Civil rights or positive rights are those legal rights retained by citizens and protected by the government. ... Human rights are rights which some hold to be inalienable and belonging to all humans. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Civil law or Continental law or Romano-Germanic law is the predominant system of law in the world. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...


Juries weigh the evidence and testimony to determine questions of fact. Juries generally do not determine questions of law, although this was common in the past. A verdict is a finding of fact. A question of law may lead to the overturning of a verdict. In law, a question of fact (also known as a point of fact) is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. ... In law, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law. ...


A jury trial should not be confused with grand jury proceedings. The jury used for a trial can be referred to as a "petit jury" to distinguish it from a grand jury, used for indictments. A grand jury is a type of jury, in the common law legal system, which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. ... In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: ) is a formal charge of having committed a most serious criminal offense. ...

Contents

History of jury trials

If one considers the jury trial as one of lay judges and do not limit the number to the twelve of Anglo-Saxon common law, it can be said that the jury can be found as far back as ancient Greece and Rome. The judicial procedure in Athens that Aristotle recorded in The Athenian Constitution, was the following: to be a juror or dikaste, one needed to be over thirty, not owe anything to the state and not be a slave. The dikaste, the individuals who formed part of the Athenian jury, were chosen by lot by the Archons of their tribe, each of the Archons of the nine tribes contributing to the formation of the dikastai. There existed a mechanism through which it was assured that no one could elect dikaste for their own trial. For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of 500 citizens. For capital cases, those which involved death, the loss of liberty, exile, the loss of civil rights, or the seizure of property, the trial was before a jury of 1,000 to 1,500 dikastai. It isn’t hard to see why the unanimity rule would be unrealistic in this kind of trial, as well as why it should be unstable as a form of government. The Anglo-Saxons refers collectively to the groups of Germanic tribes who achieved dominance in southern Britain from the mid-5th century, forming the basis for the modern English nation. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... For other uses, see Roman Empire (disambiguation). ... Athens is the largest and the capital city of Greece, located in the Attica periphery. ... Aristotle (Greek: AristotélÄ“s) (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. ...


From the beginnings of the republic and in the majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury, the Roman judges being civilian, lay and not professional. Capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Greek trials. There exists a connection between England and Rome that goes back to the time of Julius Caesar, when he conquered the southern part of the British isle. How deep was the imprint left by the Roman institutions on the Celts that were romanized is difficult to determine. With the fall of the Roman empire and the following barbarization of the region, historians doubt that Roman customs and laws survived. The arrival of Roman institutions to England is more widely attributed to William the Conqueror and the Normans during times of greater interest in Roman law. William I ( 1027 – September 9, 1087), was King of England from 1066 to 1087. ... Norman conquests in red. ... Using the term Roman law in a broader sense, one may say that Roman law is not only the legal system of ancient Rome but the law that was applied throughout most of Europe until the end of the 18th century. ...


According to George Macaulay Trevelyan in A Shortened History of England, during the Viking occupation: “The Scandinavians, when not on the Viking warpath, were a litigious people and loved to get together in the ‘thing’ to hear legal argument. They had no professional lawyers, but many of their farmer-warriors, like Njal, the truth-teller, were learned in folk custom and in its intricate judicial procedure. A Danish town in England often had, as its principal officers, twelve hereditary ‘law men.’ The Danes introduced the habit of making committees among the free men in court, which perhaps made England favorable ground for the future growth of the jury system out of a Frankish custom later introduced by the Normans.” The English king Ethelred the Unready set up an early legal system through the Wantage Code of Ethelred, one provision of which stated that the twelve leading thegns (minor nobles) of each wapentake (a small district) were required to swear that they would investigate crimes without a bias. These juries differed from the modern sort by being self-informing; instead of getting information through a trial, the jurors were required to investigate the case themselves.[1] George Macaulay Trevelyan (February 16, 1876 – 1962) was an English historian, son of Sir George Otto Trevelyan and great-nephew of Thomas Macaulay. ... For other uses, see Viking (disambiguation). ... Ethelred II or Æþelræd Unræd (c. ... Thegn or Thane, is an Anglo-Saxon word (þeg(e)n) meaning an attendant, servant, retainer or official. ... A wapentake is a term derived from the Old Norse, the rough equivalent of an Anglo-Saxon hundred. ...


King Henry II took a major step in developing the jury system. Henry II set up a system to resolve land disputes using juries. A jury of twelve free men were assigned to arbitrate in these disputes. Unlike the modern jury, these men were charged with uncovering the facts of the case on their own rather than listening to arguments in court. Henry II of England 5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189) ruled as King of England (1154–1189), Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Count of Nantes, Lord of Ireland and, at various times, controlled parts of Wales, Scotland and western France. ...


Henry II also introduced what is now known as the "grand jury" through his Assize of Clarendon. Under the assize, a jury of free men was charged with reporting any crimes that they knew of in their hundred to a "justice in eyre," a judge who moved between hundreds on a circuit. A criminal accused by this jury was given a trial by ordeal. A grand jury is a type of jury, in the common law legal system, which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. ... The Assize of Clarendon was an act of King Henry II of England of 1166, whereby trial by jury became the norm in England, replacing alternatives such as trial by combat. ... A hundred is an administrative division, frequently used in Europe and New England, which historically was used to divide a larger region into smaller geographical units. ... Trial by ordeal is a judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by subjecting them to a painful task. ...


The Church banned participation of clergy in trial by ordeal in 1215. Without the legitimacy of religion, trial by ordeal collapsed. The juries under the assizes began deciding guilt as well as providing accusations. The same year, trial by jury became a pretty explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta read: A certified copy of the Magna Carta March 4 - King John of England makes an oath to the Pope as a crusader to gain the support of Innocent III. June 15 - King John of England was forced to put his seal on the Magna Carta, outlining the rights of landowning... Magna Carta Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter, literally Great Paper), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. ... This article is about the King of England. ...


Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land." Although it says and or by the law of the land, this in no manner can be interpreted as if it were enough to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen. The law of the land was the consuetudinary law, based on the customs and consent of John’s subjects, and since they did not have Parliament in those times, this meant that neither the king nor the barons could make a law without the consent of the people. According to some sources, in the time of Edward III, by the law of the land had been substituted by due process of law, which in those times was a trial by twelve peers. Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist political philosopher, abolitionist, and legal theorist of the 19th century. ...


During the mid-14th Century, it was forbidden that persons who had sat on the Presenting Jury (i.e., in modern parlance, the Grand Jury) to sit on the trial jury for that crime. 25 Edward III stat 5., c3 (1353). Over time, English juries became less self-informing and relied more on the trial itself for information on the case. Jurors remained free to investigate cases on their own until the 17th century. The Magna Charta being forgotten after a succession of benevolent reigns (or, more probably, reigns limited by the jury and the barons, and only under the rule of laws that the juries and barons found acceptable), the kings, through the royal judges, began to extend their control over the jury and the kingdom. In David Hume's History of England, he tells something of the powers that the kings had accumulated in the times after the Magna Carta, the prerogatives of the crown and the sources of great power with which these monarchs counted: A grand jury is a type of jury, in the common law legal system, which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. ...

One of the most ancient and most established instruments of power was the court of Star Chamber, which possessed an unlimited discretionary authority of fining, imprisoning, and inflicting corporal punishment, and whose jurisdiction extended to all sorts of offenses, contempts, and disorders, that lay not within reach of the common law. The members of this court consisted of the privy council and the judges; men who all of them enjoyed their offices during pleasure: And when the prince himself was present, he was the sole judge, and all the others could only interpose with their advice. There needed but this one court in any government, to put an end to all regular, legal, and exact plans of liberty. For who durst set himself in opposition to the crown and ministry, or aspire to the character of being a patron of freedom, while exposed to so arbitrary a jurisdiction? I much question, whether any of the absolute monarchies in Europe contain, at present, so illegal and despotic a tribunal. While so many terrors hung over the people, no jury durst have acquitted a man, when the court was resolved to have him condemned. The practice also, of not confronting witnesses to the prisoner, gave the crown lawyers all imaginable advantage against him. And, indeed, there scarcely occurs an instance, during all these reigns, that the sovereign, or the ministers, were ever disappointed in the issue of a prosecution. Timid juries, and judges who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to second all the views of the crown. And as the practice was anciently common of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the direction of these dependent judges; it is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject.

The first paragraph of the Act that abolished the Star Chamber repeats the clause on the right of a citizen to be judged by his peers: Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641 An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber. The Star Chamber (Latin Camera stellata) was an English court of law at the royal Palace of Westminster that sat between 1487 and 1641, when the court itself was abolished. ...

WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land…

Many English colonies adopted the jury trial system including the United States. Jury trials in criminal cases were a protected right in the original Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution extend the rights to trial by jury to include the right to jury trial for both criminal and civil matters and a grand jury for serious cases. This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Amendment VI (the Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution codifies rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. ... “Seventh Amendment” redirects here. ...


The role of jury trials

  • In most common law jurisdictions, the jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case, while the judge determines the law. These "peers of the accused" are responsible for listening to a dispute, evaluating the evidence presented, deciding on the facts, and making a decision in accordance with the rules of law and their jury instructions. Typically, the jury only judges guilt or a verdict of not guilty, but the actual penalty is set by the judge.
  • In France and some countries organized in the same fashion, the jury and several professional judges sit together to determine guilt first. Then, if guilt was determined, they decide the appropriate penalty.

Some jurisdictions with jury trials allow the defendant to waive their right to a jury trial, this leading to a bench trial. Jury trials tend to occur only when a crime is considered serious. In some jurisdictions, such as France and Brazil, jury trials are reserved, and compulsory, for the most severe crimes and are not available for civil cases. In Brazil, for example, trials by jury are applied in cases of First and Second-degree murders, even if only attempted. In others, such as the United Kingdom, jury trials are only available for criminal cases and very specific civil cases (defamation, malicious prosecution, civil fraud and false imprisonment). In the United States, jury trials are available in both civil and criminal cases. In Canada, jury trials are compulsory for crimes which the maximum sentence exceeds 5 years, and optional for crimes of which the maximum sentence exceeds 2 years, but less than 5 years. However, the right to a jury trial may be waived if both the prosecution and defense agree. For other uses, see Law (disambiguation). ... Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors must follow when the jury is deciding a case. ... A bench trial in the U.S. is a trial before a judge in which the defendant has waived his/her right to a jury trial. ... In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someones reputation. ... Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. ... False imprisonment is a tort, and possibly a crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority. ...


In the United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials. Approximately 150,000 jury trials are conducted in state courts in the U.S., and an additional 5,000 jury trials are conducted in federal courts. Two-thirds of jury trials are criminal trials, one-third are civil and "other" (e.g., family,, municipal ordinance, traffic). Nevertheless, the vast majority of cases are in fact settled by plea bargain which removes the need for a jury trial. FreQuency is a music video game developed by Harmonix and published by SCEI. It was released in November 2001. ... A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. ...


Pros and cons

In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. Other common assertions about the benefits of trial by jury is that it provides a means of interjecting community norms and values into judicial proceedings and that it legitimizes the law by providing opportunities for citizens to validate criminal statutes in their application to specific trials. Alexis de Tocqueville also claimed that jury trials educate citizens about self-government. Many also believe that a jury is likely to provide a more sympathetic hearing, or a fairer one, to a party who is not part of the government – or other establishment interest – than would representatives of the state. The doctrine and practice of dispersing political power and creating mutual accountability between political entities such as the courts, the president or prime minister, the legislature, and the citizens. ... For other uses, see Tocqueville (disambiguation) Alexis de Tocqueville Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville (Verneuil-sur-Seine, ÃŽle-de-France, July 29, 1805– Cannes, April 16, 1859) was a French political thinker and historian. ...


This last point may be disputed. For example, in highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to convict based on personal feelings rather than on conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Former attorney, then later minister of Justice Robert Badinter remarked about jury trials in France that they were like "riding a ship into a storm," because they are much less predictable than bench trials. The French Minister of Justice (Ministre de la Justice) is an important cabinet official in the Government of France. ... Robert Badinter during a demonstration against the death penalty in Paris, on February 3rd, 2007 Robert Badinter (born March 30, 1928) is a high-profile French criminal lawyer, university professor and politician mainly known for his struggle against the death penalty. ...


Another issue with jury trials is the potential for jurors to be swayed by prejudice, including racial considerations. An infamous case was the 1992 trial in the Rodney King case in California, in which white police officers were acquitted of excessive force in the violent beating of a black man by a jury consisting mostly of whites without any black jurors, despite an incriminating videotape of the action. This led to widespread questioning about the case and riots ensued. Rodney King Rodney Glen King (born April 2, 1965 in Sacramento, California) is an African-American taxi driver who was violently arrested by officers of the LAPD (Ofc. ... Official language(s) English Capital Sacramento Largest city Los Angeles Largest metro area Greater Los Angeles Area  Ranked 3rd  - Total 158,302 sq mi (410,000 km²)  - Width 250 miles (400 km)  - Length 770 miles (1,240 km)  - % water 4. ... For other uses, see Los Angeles riots (disambiguation). ...


The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the U.S. contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen. Consider Japan, for instance, which used to have optional jury trials for capital or other serious crimes between 1928 and 1943. The defendant could freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by judges, and the decisions of the jury were non-binding. During the Tōjō-regime this was suspended, arguably due to the popular belief that any defendant who risks his fate on the opinions of untrained laymen is almost certainly guilty. Year 1928 (MCMXXVIII) was a leap year starting on Sunday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 1943 (MCMXLIII) was a common year starting on Friday (the link will display full 1943 calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... Hideki Tojo Hideki Tojo (東條 英機 Tōjō Hideki) (December 30, 1884–December 23, 1948) was a Japanese general and the 27th Prime Minister of Japan during much of World War II, from October 18, 1941 to July 22, 1944. ...


One issue that has been raised is the ability of a jury to fully understand statistical or scientific evidence. It has been said that the expectation of jury members as to the explanatory power of scientific evidence has been raised by television in what is known as the CSI effect. In at least one English trial the misuse or misunderstanding of statistics has led to wrongful conviction[2]. The CSI Effect (sometimes referred to as the CSI syndrome) is a reference to the phenomenon of popular television shows such as the CSI franchise, the Law & Order Franchise and Crossing Jordan raising crime victims and jury members real-world expectations of forensic science, especially crime scene investigation and DNA...


Recently, in British, Lord Goldsmith, the government's Attorney General, has been actively pressing forward[1] with the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill in Parliament, which seeks to abolish jury trials in major criminal fraud trials. The Bill was subject to sharp criticism from both sides of the House of Commons,[2] , but passed its second Commons reading in November 2006[3]. The Bill follows the Government's earlier, unsuccessful attempt to pass measures allowing trials without jury in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Peter Henry Goldsmith, Baron Goldsmith, PC, is the current Attorney General of England and Wales. ... In most common law jurisdictions, the Attorney General is the main legal adviser to the government, and in some jurisdictions may in addition have executive responsibility for law enforcement or responsibility for public prosecutions. ... Type Lower House Speaker of the House of Commons Leader of the House of Commons Michael Martin, (Non-affiliated) since October 23, 2000 Harriet Harman, QC, (Labour) since June 28, 2007 Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Theresa May, PC, (Conservative) since December 6, 2005 Members 646 Political groups... The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003, c. ...


Canada

See: Section Eleven (f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms crap ...


The United States

In the United States every person accused of a felony has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises from Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. ... Amendment VI (the Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution codifies rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... Public trial or open trial is a trial open to public, as opposed to the secret trial. ... Amendment XIV in the National Archives The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), intended to secure rights for former slaves. ...


In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines. This invalidated the procedure in many states and the federal courts that allowed sentencing enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on the judge's findings alone. Apprendi v. ... Year 2000 (MM) was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display full 2000 Gregorian calendar). ... Holding The State of Washingtons criminal sentencing system violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, because it gave judges the ability to increase sentences based on their own determination of facts. ... Year 2004 (MMIV) was a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government Other countries  Atlas  Politics Portal      The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym... Map of the boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. ...


Jurors in some states are selected through voter registration and drivers' license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking the recipient to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have any conditions that would excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, a summons is issued.


Civil trial procedure

Note: in the United States "Civil" denotes non-criminal actions and should not be confused with Civil law jurisdictions. A lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court in order to recover a right, obtain damages for an injury, obtain an injunction to prevent an injury, or obtain a declaratory judgment to prevent future legal disputes. ...


In the United States, typical civil trial procedure is very similar to criminal trial procedure. The right to trial by jury is guaranteed by the 7th Amendment, which provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." [3] In Joseph Story's 1883 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, he wrote, "[I]t is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty." American jurist Joseph Story Joseph Story (September 18, 1779 - September 10, 1845), American jurist, was born at Marblehead, Massachusetts. ...


The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, however, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part. [4]


Following the English tradition, U.S. juries have usually been composed of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict has usually been required to be unanimous. However, in many jurisdictions, the number of jurors is often reduced to a lesser number (such as five or six) by legislative enactment, or by agreement of both sides. Some jurisdictions also permit a verdict to be returned despite the dissent of one, two, or three jurors.


Waiver of jury trial

The vast majority of U.S. criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by plea bargain. Both prosecutors and defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by negotiation resulting in a plea bargain. If the defendant waives a jury trial, a bench trial is held. Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. ... The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries adopting the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. ... A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ... Negotiator redirects here. ... A bench trial in the U.S. is a trial before a judge in which the defendant has waived his/her right to a jury trial. ...


In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial. Only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant have a waiver of jury trial. However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial.


Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas

In Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), it was ruled: "offenses for which the maximum period of incarceration is six months, or less, are presumptively petty...a defendant can overcome this, and become entitled to a jury trial,..by showing that additional penalties [such as monetary fines]...are...so severe [as to indicate] that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a serious one." Holding The right to a jury trial is not found in crimes where the maximum period of incarceration is under six months. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... This article is about the institution. ... For other uses, see Money (disambiguation). ...


United Kingdom

The United Kingdom consists of three separate legal jurisdictions, but there are some features common to all of them, in particular there is seldom anything like the U.S. voir dire system, jurors are usually just accepted without question. Controversially, in England there has been some screening in sensitive security cases, but the Scottish courts have firmly set themselves against any form of jury vetting. The phrase voir dire derives from Middle French; in modern English it is interpreted to mean speak the truth and generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being invited to sit on a jury. ...


England and Wales

In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), anyone accused of a criminal offence has a right to a trial by jury, although petty criminal cases are heard without a jury in magistrates courts. Middle ranking ("either way") offences may be tried by the magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury. Serious ("indictable") offences however must be tried before a jury. Juries sit in a few civil cases, in particular, defamation and cases involving the state. Juries also sit in coroners courts for more contentious inquests. All juries consist of 12 people between 18–70 years of age, selected at random from the register of voters. In the past a unanimous verdict was required. This has been changed so that, if the jury fail to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10-2 majority. This was to prevent jury tampering in cases involving organised crime. For other uses, see England (disambiguation). ... This article is about the country. ... A magistrate is a judicial officer. ... A coroner is either the presiding officer of a special court, a medical officer, or an officer of law responsible for investigating deaths, particularly those happening under unusual circumstances. ...


Scotland

In Scotland juries consist of 15 people for criminal trials and 12 people for civil trials. In criminal trials there has never been a requirement for verdicts to be unanimous, they are reached by simple majority. (People were occasionally hanged on majority verdicts in Scotland.) Juries may also return the unusual verdict of not proven. The backing of at least eight jurors is needed to return a guilty verdict, even if the number of jurors drops below 15 e.g. because of illness. It is not possible for Scots juries to "hang", if there is not sufficient support for any verdict then this is treated as a verdict of not guilty. This article is about the country. ... Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. ...


Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, the role of the jury trial is roughly similar to England and Wales, except that jury trials have been replaced in cases of alleged terrorist offences by courts where the judge sits alone, known as "Diplock courts". This was because of widespread jury intimidation during the Troubles. With the improving security situation in the province, Diplock courts are due to be phased out in 2007. Northern Ireland (Irish: ) is a part of the United Kingdom lying in the northeast of the island of Ireland, covering 5,459 square miles (14,139 km², about a sixth of the islands total area). ... Terrorist redirects here. ... The court system established by the Diplock report in December 1972, which was concerned with the problem of dealing with terrorist violence other than by internment. ... The Troubles is a term used to describe two periods of violence in Ireland during the twentieth century. ...


France

In France, a jury of nine is used to hear the most serious criminal cases such as murder.


According to the French Code of Penal Procedure, all jurors must individually swear to the following message from the judge presiding the court:

You judge and promise to examine with the most scrupulous attention the charges who will be laid against [the defendant]; to betray neither the interests of the defendant, nor the interests of the society that accuses him, nor the interests of the victim; not to communicate with anybody until you [declare your verdict]; not to listen to hatred, malice, fear or affection; to remember that the defendant is presumed to be innocent and that doubt must benefit him; to decide yourself according to the charges and the means of defense, according to your conscience and intimate conviction, with the impartiality and firmness that befit an honest and free person, and to keep the secret of the deliberations, even after you cease to be a juror.[citation needed]

Germany

Jury trials were abolished in Germany by the government on January 4, 1924, because their verdicts were not perceived just anymore. Juries tended to be mistaken because of the increasing complexity of trials. Also they started to lead into an unjustified acquittal in more and more cases.[4] J.L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. ...


India

Jury trials were abolished by the government of India in 1960 on the grounds they would be susceptible to media and public influence. This decision was based on an 8:1 acquittal of Kawas Nanavati in K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, which was overturned by higher courts, on the grounds that the jury was misled by the presiding judge. The Government of India (Hindi: भारत सरकार [1]Bhārat Sarkār), officially referred to as the Union Government, and commonly as Central Government, was established by the Constitution of India, and is the governing authority of a federal union of 28 states and 7 union territories, collectively called the Republic of... Year 1960 (MCMLX) was a leap year starting on Friday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... Holding Appellant Nanavati, a Naval Officer, was put up on trial under sec. ...


Australia

The first trial by jury in the colony of New South Wales was held in April 1841 in the town of Berrima. “NSW” redirects here. ... Berrima is a village in the Southern Highlands district on the old Hume Highway between Canberra and Sydney, Australia, and is now popular with visitors from both cities, especially on weekends. ...


Challenging potential jurors

The voir dire system of examining the jury pool before selection is not permitted in Australia as it violates the privacy of jurors. Therefore, though it exists, the right to challenge for cause during jury selection cannot be made much use of. Peremptory challenges are usually based on the hunches of the counsels and no reason is needed to use them. All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection, however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels in each state are not all the same. Until 1987 New South Wales had twenty peremptory challenges for each side where the offence was murder, and eight for all other cases. In 1987 this was lowered to three peremptory challenges per side, the same amount allowed in South Australia. Eight peremptory challenges are allowed for both counsels for all offences in the states Victoria and Queensland. Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow for six. Western Australia allows five peremptory challenges per side, according to section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA). The phrase voir dire derives from Middle French; in modern English it is interpreted to mean speak the truth and generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being invited to sit on a jury. ... Jury selection refers to several methods used to choose the people who will serve on a trial jury. ... Peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the parties to a court case to reject a certain number of potential jurors without having to give any reason. ... Hunch may refer to: An intuitive reckoning A forward bend in ones body, such as that from a crushed vertebra A parody of Derryn Hinch played by Steve Vizard on Australian television show Fast Forward The Hunch Backs, a mountain in Hong Kong Category: ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... “NSW” redirects here. ... Capital Adelaide Government Constitutional monarchy Governor Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Premier Mike Rann (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 11  - Senate seats 12 Gross State Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $59,819 (5th)  - Product per capita  $38,838/person (7th) Population (End of September 2006)  - Population  1,558,200 (5th)  - Density  1. ... “VIC” redirects here. ... Slogan or Nickname: Sunshine State, Smart State Motto(s): Audax at Fidelis (Bold but Faithful) Other Australian states and territories Capital Brisbane Government Constitutional monarchy Governor Quentin Bryce Premier Peter Beattie retiring as of 13. ... Slogan or Nickname: The Apple Isle; Holiday Isle Motto(s): Ubertas et Fidelitas (Fertility and Faithfulness) Other Australian states and territories Capital Hobart Government Constitutional monarchy Governor William Cox Premier Paul Lennon (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 5  - Senate seats 12 Gross State Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $16,114... Slogan or Nickname: The Territory, The NT, The Top End Motto(s): none Other Australian states and territories Capital Darwin Government Constitutional monarchy Administrator Ted Egan Chief Minister Clare Martin (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 2  - Senate seats 2 Gross Territorial Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $10,418 (8th)  - Product... Slogan or Nickname: Wildflower State or the Golden State Other Australian states and territories Capital Perth Government Constitutional monarchy Governor Ken Michael Premier Alan Carpenter (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 15  - Senate seats 12 Gross State Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $100,900 (4th)  - Product per capita  $50,355/person...


Majority and unanimous verdicts in criminal trials

In Australia majority verdicts are allowed in South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, while New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT require unanimous verdicts. Since 1927 South Australia has permitted majority verdicts of 11:1, and 10:1 and 9:1 where the jury has been reduced, in criminal trials if a unanimous verdict cannot be reached in four hours. They are accepted in all cases except for "guilty" verdicts where the defendant is on trial for murder or treason. Victoria has accepted majority verdicts with the same conditions since 1994, though deliberations must go on for six hours before a majority verdict can be made. Western Australia accepted majority verdicts in 1957 for all trials except where the crime is murder or has a life sentence. A 10:2 verdict is accepted. Majority verdicts of 10:2 have been allowed in Tasmania since 1936 for all cases except murder and treason if a unanimous decision has not been made within two hours. Since 1943 verdicts of “not guilty” for murder and treason have also been included, but must be discussed for six hours. The Northern Territory has allowed majority verdicts of 10:2, 10:1 and 9:1 since 1963 and does not discriminate between cases whether the charge is murder or not. Deliberation must go for at least six hours before delivering a majority verdict. A majority is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group. ... Capital Adelaide Government Constitutional monarchy Governor Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Premier Mike Rann (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 11  - Senate seats 12 Gross State Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $59,819 (5th)  - Product per capita  $38,838/person (7th) Population (End of September 2006)  - Population  1,558,200 (5th)  - Density  1. ... “VIC” redirects here. ... Slogan or Nickname: Wildflower State or the Golden State Other Australian states and territories Capital Perth Government Constitutional monarchy Governor Ken Michael Premier Alan Carpenter (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 15  - Senate seats 12 Gross State Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $100,900 (4th)  - Product per capita  $50,355/person... Slogan or Nickname: The Apple Isle; Holiday Isle Motto(s): Ubertas et Fidelitas (Fertility and Faithfulness) Other Australian states and territories Capital Hobart Government Constitutional monarchy Governor William Cox Premier Paul Lennon (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 5  - Senate seats 12 Gross State Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $16,114... Slogan or Nickname: The Territory, The NT, The Top End Motto(s): none Other Australian states and territories Capital Darwin Government Constitutional monarchy Administrator Ted Egan Chief Minister Clare Martin (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 2  - Senate seats 2 Gross Territorial Product (2004-05)  - Product ($m)  $10,418 (8th)  - Product... “NSW” redirects here. ... Slogan or Nickname: Sunshine State, Smart State Motto(s): Audax at Fidelis (Bold but Faithful) Other Australian states and territories Capital Brisbane Government Constitutional monarchy Governor Quentin Bryce Premier Peter Beattie retiring as of 13. ... Capital Canberra Government Constitutional monarchy Administrator none Chief Minister Jon Stanhope (ALP) Federal representation  - House seats 2  - Senate seats 2 Gross Territorial Product (2006)  - Product ($m)  $19,167 (6th)  - Product per capita  $57,303/person (1st) Population (End of November 2006)  - Population  333,667 (7th)  - Density  137. ... Unanimity is a complete agreement by everyone. ... In criminal law, guilt is entirely externally defined by the state, or more generally a “court of law. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... In criminal law, an acquittal is the legal result of a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. ...


New Zealand

In 2004 New Zealand Parliament first heard the Criminal Procedures bill which would allow majority verdicts of 11:1. At its second reading in 2006, both major parties supported this element of the bill.[5]


Russia

Firstly, jury trials were introduced in the Russian Empire as a result of the Judicial reform of Alexander II in 1864. After the October Revolution they were abolished and introduced again in the Russian Federation for certain crimes in 1993. The Federal Constitution of that year also stipulates that, until the abolition of the death penalty, all defendants in a case that may result in a death sentence are entitled to a jury trial. [5] The subject of this article was previously also known as Russia. ... During the judicial reform of Emperor Alexander II, a completely new court system and a completely new order of legal proceedings were established in Imperial Russia The judicial reform of Alexander II is generally considered one of the most successful and the most consistent (along with the military reform) of... 1864 (MDCCCLXIV) was a leap year starting on Friday (see link for calendar) of the Gregorian calendar or a leap year starting on Sunday of the 12-day-slower Julian calendar. ... For other uses, see October Revolution (disambiguation). ... The current Constitution of the Russian Federation (Конституция Российской Федерации) was adopted by national referendum on December 12, 1993 replacing the previous Soviet-era Constitution of April 12, 1978 of Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. ...


See also

Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what is the law, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. ... Amendment VI (the Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution codifies rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. ... “Seventh Amendment” redirects here. ... History The jury law was first introduced to Japan in 1923 by the leadership of the Prime Minister Hara Takashi. ...

References

  1. ^ "No-jury trial plan 'presses on'", BBC News. 
  2. ^ "Non-jury trial plans under fire", BBC News. 
  3. ^ "Commons passes jury-less trials", BBC News. 
  4. ^ Geschworenengericht. Retrieved on 2007-09-11.
  5. ^ Criminal Procedure Bill: Second Reading. Hansard, Tuesday, 9 May 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-21.
  • Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J. Simpson, HarperCollins 2005. ISBN 0-00-711121-5
  • Brill, Steven. Trial by Jury. (New York: American Lawyer Books/TOUCHSTONE, 1989).
  • Lehman, Godfrey D. We the jury… (New York: Prometheus Books, 1997).

Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era. ... is the 254th day of the year (255th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era. ... is the 80th day of the year (81st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ...

History of the jury


  Results from FactBites:
 
jury trial: Definition and Much More from Answers.com (3575 words)
A jury trial is a trial in which the judge of the facts, as opposed to the judge of the law, is a jury: a group of citizens, selected from among a randomly selected poll, who are generally not legal professionals.
Jury trials in criminal cases were a protected right in the original Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the Constitution extend the rights to trial by jury to include the right to jury trial at the state level for both criminal and civil matters and a grand jury for serious cases.
In the United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials; the vast majority of cases are in fact settled by plea bargain which removes the need for a jury trial.
Wisconsin Court System - court services for jurors - outline of a jury trial (2098 words)
Juries usually consist of 6 or 12 jurors (depending on the case type), often with one or two alternate jurors.
It is common during a trial for the parties to present motions or hold conferences with the judge out of the hearing of the jury.
The task of the jury is to apply the abstract rules of law as given by the judge to the real-life situations of the case.
  More results at FactBites »

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m