Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.
This article is about the body of certain people in a judicial system. For the term referring to "coroner's jury", see Inquest. For other uses, see Jury (disambiguation).
Juries developed in England during the Middle Ages and are a hallmark of the English common law system. They are commonly used in countries whose legal systems derive from the British Empire, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Ireland. Most other countries use variations of the European civil law or Islamic sharia law systems, which do not use juries.
Most trial juries are "petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. Historically, a larger jury known as a grand jury was used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects. All common law countries except the United States and Liberia have phased out grand juries. The modern criminal court jury arrangement has evolved out of the medieval juries in England. Members were supposed to inform themselves of crimes and then of the details of the crimes. Their function was therefore closer to that of a grand jury than that of a jury in a trial.
Trial jury size[edit]
As the concept of a jury was spread through the British Empire, first to Ireland and then to other countries, the size of the jury was one of the details that was adapted to the local culture.[2] The tradition in England was to have twelve jurors, but other countries use smaller juries,[2] and some, such as Scotland, use larger juries.
The size of the jury is to provide a "cross-section" of the public. In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Florida state jury of six was sufficient, that "the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of "trial by jury," and that respondent's refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for by Florida law "did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth."[19] In Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the number of jurors could not be reduced below six.
In Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that a jury of 12 members was not an essential feature of "trial by jury" in section 80 of the Australian Constitution.
In Scotland, a jury in a criminal trial consists of 15 jurors, which is thought to be the largest in the world. In 2009 a review by the Scottish Government regarding the possibility of reduction[20] led to the decision to retain 15 jurors, with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stating that after extensive consultation, he had decided that Scotland had got it "uniquely right".[21] Trials in the Republic of Ireland which are scheduled to last over 2 months can, but do not have to, have 15 jurors.
A study by the University of Glasgow suggested that a civil jury of 12 people was ineffective because a few jurors ended up dominating the discussion, and that seven was a better number because more people feel comfortable speaking, and they have an easier time reaching a unanimous decision.[22][23][24]
Composition[edit]
A jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict and representing a variety of people from that area. Achieving this goal can be difficult when juror qualifications differ significantly from the people living in that area.[2] For example, in 19th-century Ireland, the qualified jurors were much wealthier, much less likely to be Roman Catholic, and much less likely to speak only the Irish language than the typical Irish person.[2]
A head juror is called the foreperson, foreman, or presiding juror. The foreperson may be chosen before the trial begins, or at the beginning of the jury's deliberations. The foreperson may be selected by the judge or by vote of the jurors, depending on the jurisdiction. The foreperson's role may include asking questions (usually to the judge) on behalf of the jury, facilitating jury discussions, and announcing the verdict of the jury.
In the past, England had special juries, which empaneled only wealthier property owners as jurors.[2]
Integrity[edit]
For juries to fulfill their role of analyzing the facts of the case, there are strict rules about their use of information during the trial. Juries are often instructed to avoid learning about the case from any source other than the trial (for example from media or the Internet) and not to conduct their own investigations (such as independently visiting a crime scene). Parties to the case, lawyers, and witnesses are not allowed to speak with a member of the jury. Doing these things may constitute reversible error. Rarely, such as in very high-profile cases, the court may order a jury sequestered for the deliberation phase or for the entire trial.
Jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in strict confidence during the trial and deliberations, and in some jurisdictions even after a verdict is rendered. In Canadian and English law, the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trial or verdict is considered to be contempt of court, a criminal offense. In the United States, confidentiality is usually only required until a verdict has been reached, and jurors have sometimes made remarks that called into question whether a verdict was properly reached. In Australia, academics are permitted to scrutinize the jury process only after obtaining a certificate or approval from the Attorney-General.
Because of the importance of preventing undue influence on a jury, embracery, jury intimidation or jury tampering (like witness tampering) is a serious crime, whether attempted through bribery, threat of violence, or other means.[2] At various points in history, when threats to jurors became pervasive, the right to jury trial has been revoked, such as during the 1880s in Ireland.[2]
Jurors themselves can also be held liable if they deliberately compromise their impartiality. Depending on local law, if a juror takes a bribe, the verdict may be overturned and the juror may be fined or imprisoned.[2]
Jurors' experience[edit]
The experience of individual jurors is understudied.[2] However, it is known that jurors during times of political unrest have been criminally threatened or physically harmed because of their service, and this resulted in people being less willing to serve, or to prefer the risk of judicial fines for not serving to the risk of criminal retribution if they do serve on the jury.[2]
Jurors typically take their roles very seriously.[48] According to Simon (1980), jurors approach their responsibilities as decision makers much in the same way as a court judge: with great seriousness, a lawful mind, and a concern for consistency that is evidence-based. By actively processing evidence, making inferences, using common sense and personal experiences to inform their decision-making, research has indicated that jurors are effective decision makers who seek thorough understanding, rather than passive, apathetic participants unfit to serve on a jury.[49]
Etymology[edit]
The word jury derives from Latin iurare ("to swear"). Juries are most common in common law adversarial-system jurisdictions. In the modern system, juries act as triers of fact, while judges act as triers of law (but see nullification). A trial without a jury (in which both questions of fact and questions of law are decided by a judge) is known as a bench trial.