Jury trial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Image:Scale of justice.png |
| 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 |
For the 1980s television show, see Trial by Jury (TV). For the comic opera, see Trial by Jury.
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. In other words, a panel of citizens collectively decide what events occurred relating to the case. Juries are most commonly associated with common law jurisdictions. However, some civil law jurisdictions also involve juries or lay assessors.
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.
Contents |
[edit] History of jury trials
Juries were developed at least as early as the Dark Ages in England. The Anglo-Saxons passed on the system to the modern age; however, they may have been influenced by the customs of the Danes or earlier Saxon tradition. 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]
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 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.
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 an implied right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:
- No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.
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.
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.
[edit] 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 innocence, 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. 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 defence agree.
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.
[edit] Pros and cons
In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. 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.
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.
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.
The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the US 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.
Recently, in England, the government's Lord Chancellor supported a bill in Parliament to abolish jury trials in major criminal fraud trials. Both liberal and conservative politicians sharply resisted the move for a number of reasons. First, the jury system is highly respected in England and has an 800-year history, although originally limited to a few nobles. A half million persons a year participate in the jury system, and support the concept. Second, the Lord Chancellor's proposal appeared to arise out of several 'bungled' trials by the government in high profile cases. Third, there was no research done by the Lord Chancellor to support his contention that the juries were not smart enough to handle fact finding in fraud cases, but instead it appeared that the prosecutor's offices didn't handle the cases well.
For now the bill to limit the scope of jury trials has been stopped. "1", Court Watch, November 28, 2005.
[edit] 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 the 6th amendment (made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) that 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..." 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.
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.
Jurors in the U.S. 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.
[edit] Civil trial procedure
Note: in the United States "Civil" denotes non-criminal actions and should not be confused with Civil law jurisdictions.
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." [2] 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."
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. [3]
Following the English tradition, U.S. juries have usually been comprised of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict was usually 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.
[edit] Waiver of jury trial
The vast majority of US 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.
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.
[edit] Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
In Blanton v. North Las Vegas (US-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."
[edit] 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 US 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.
[edit] England and Wales
In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), anyone accused of all but the most minor crimes has a right to a trial by jury, although the majority of criminal cases are heard without a jury in magistrates courts. Serious crimes however must be tried before a jury. Juries sit in some civil cases, in particular fraud, 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 in order to prevent jury tampering in cases involving organised crime.
[edit] 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 not proven verdict. 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] France
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 so listen to hatred, malice, fear or affection; to remember that the defendant is presumed to be ######## 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]
[edit] 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.
[edit] Australia
The first trial by jury in the colony of New South Wales was held in April 1841 in the town of Berrima.
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 Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland. Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow for six.
Jury Verdicts in Criminal Trials - Majority/Unanimous
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 those in which the defendant is found guilty of murder or treason. Victoria has accepted majority verdicts for 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.
[edit] New Zealand
In 2004 New Zealand Parliament heard the Criminal Procedures bill which proposed introducing majority verdicts of 11:1 into court.
[edit] See also
- Jury nullification
- Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Jury in Japan
[edit] References
- Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J. Simpson, HarperCollins 2005. ISBN 0-00-711121-5
