Selection of the trial jury

Origins of the jury

A jury is a body of lay men and women randomly selected to determine facts and to provide a decision in a legal proceeding. Such a body traditionally consists of 12 people and is called a petit jury or trial jury.

The exact origin of the jury system is not known; various sources have attributed it to different European peoples who at an early period developed similar methods of trial The jury is probably of Frankish origin, beginning with inquisition, which had an accusatory and interrogatory function. Trial by jury was brought to England by the Normans in 1066.

In medieval Europe, trials were usually decided by ordeals, in which it was believed God intervened, revealing the wrongdoer and upholding the righteous. In the ordeal by water, for instance, a priest admonished the water not to accept a liar. The person whose oath was being tested was then thrown in. If he floated, his oath was deemed to have been perjured. If he was telling the truth, he might drown but his innocence was clear.

In 1215, however, the Catholic Church decided that trial by ordeal was superstition, and priests were forbidden to take part. As a result, a new method of trial was needed, and the jury system emerged. At first the jury was made up of local people who could be expected to know the defendant. A jury was convened only to “say the truth” on the basis of its knowledge of local affairs. The word verdict reflects this early function; the Latin word from which it is derived, veridictum, means “truly said”.

In the 14^th century the role of the jury finally became that of judgement of evidence. By the 15^th century trial by jury became the dominant mode of resolving a legal issue. It was not until centuries later that the jury assumed its modern role of deciding facts on the sole basis of what is heard in court.

Jury duty

The Fear of Jury Duty For Americans, serving jury duty has always been a dreaded chore. There is plenty of history behind this fear. In colonial days, jurors were locked in a small room with no ventilation and were denied food and water in an attempt to inspire a quick verdict. If the jurors returned with the wrong decisions, they too were charged with a crime. As more and more laws were passed, the rules of evidence expanded and trials became longer, which resulted in more technical and increasingly boring hours for jurors. Trial lawyers have tried 10 change the boredom by replacing endless hours of testimony with computer animation, video reconstructions, color charts and graphics to better explain the evidence. The judicial system depends on juries. The United States Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to a trial by jury of their peers. When summoned for jury duty, Americans should look upon it as an opportunity to serve their country, their community, and their fellow citizens. Each year, over 5 million Americans are summoned for jury duty to render verdicts in approximately 120,000 trials. Prospective jurors are chosen at random from voter registration lists. When people are chosen for jury duty, they are often shown a video tape explaining the jury system or given a HANDBOOK ON JURY SERVICE.

Selection of the trial jury

The first step in the selection of the trial jury is the selection of a “jury

panel”. When you are selected for a jury panel you will take an oath, by which

you promise to answer all questions truthfully. After that the judge and the law-

yers will question you and the other members of the panel to find out if you have

any personal interest in the case, or any feelings that might make it hard for you

to be impartial. This process of questioning is called Voir Dire, a phrase mean-

ing “to speak the truth”.

During Voir Dire the lawyers may ask the judge to excuse you or another

member of the panel from sitting on the jury for this particular case. This is

called challenging a juror. There are two types of challenges. The first is called a

challenge for cause, which means that the lawyer has a specific reason for think-

ing that the juror would not be able to be impartial. The second type of challenge

is called a peremptory challenge, which means that the lawyer does not have to

state a reason for asking that the juror be excused.

In the court room

Kinds of cases

As a juror you may sit on a criminal case, a civil case, or both.
Civil Cases
Civil cases are usually disputes between or among private citizens, corporations, governments, government agencies, and other organizations. Most often, the party bringing the suit is asking for money damages for some wrong that has been done. For example, a tenant may sue a landlord for failure to fix a leaky roof, or a landlord may a sue a tenant for failure to pay rent. People who have been injured may sue a person or a company they feel is responsible for the injury.
The party bringing the suit is called the plaintiff; the party being sued is called the defendant. There may be many plaintiffs or many defendants in the same case.
The plaintiff starts the lawsuit by filing a paper called a complaint, in which the against the defendant is stated. The next paper filed is usually the answer, in which the defendant disputes what the plaintiff has said in the complaint. The defendant may also feel that there has been a wrong committed by the plaintiff, in which case a counterclaim will be filed along with the answer. It is up to the plaintiff to prove the case against the defendant. In each civil case the judge tells the jury the extent to which the plaintiff must prove the case. This is called the plaintiff burned of proof, a burden that the plaintiff must meet in order to win. In most civil cases the plaintiff's burden is to prove the case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, that the plaintiffs version of what happened in the case is more probably true than not true.
Jury verdicts do not need to be unanimous in civil cases. Only ten jurors need to agree upon a verdict if there are 12 jurors: five must agree if there are six jurors.
Criminal Cases
A criminal case is brought by the state or by a city or county against a person or persons accused of having committed a crime. The state, city, or county is called the plaintiff; the accused person is called the defendant. The charge against the defendant is called an information or a complaint. The defendant has pleaded not guilty and you should presume the defendant's innocence throughout the entire trial unless the plaintiff proves the defendant guilty. The plaintiff's burden of proof is greater in a criminal case than in a civil case. In each criminal case you hear the judge will tell you all the elements of the crime that the plaintiff must prove; the plaintiff must prove each of these elements beyond reasonable doubt before the defendant can be found guilty.

Steps of the trial

Events in a trial usually happen in a particular order, though the order may be changed by the judge. The usual order of events is set out below.

Step One: Selection of the Jury. From a large group of potential jurors 12 are chosen by counsels for the parties and sworn in.

2. Step Two: Opening Statements. The lawyers for each side discuss their views of the case that the court is to hear and also present a general picture of what they intend to prove about the case. What the lawyers say in their opening statements is not evidence and, therefore, does not help prove their cases.

3. ^ Step Three: Presentation of Evidence. All parties are entitled to present evidence. The testimony of witnesses who testify at trial is evidence. The questioning of your own witness under oath is called examination-in-chief. Each party may also question the other's witnesses - it is a "cross-examination". Evidence may also take the form of physical exhibits, such as a gun or a photograph. On occasion, the deposition - written testimony of people not able to attend the trial - may also be evidence in the case.

4. Many things presented during the trial are not evidence. For example, what the lawyers say in their opening and closing statements is not evidence. Physical exhibits offered by the lawyers, but not admitted by the judge are also to be disregarded, as is the testimony that the judge orders stricken of the record.

5. Many times during the trial the lawyers may make objections to evidence presented by the other side or to questions asked by the other lawyer. Lawyers are allowed to object to these things when they consider them improper under the laws of evidence. It is up to the judge to decide whether each objection was valid or invalid, and whether, therefore, the evidence can be admitted or the question allowed. If the objection was valid, the judge will sustain the objection. If the objection was not valid, the judge will overrule the objection. These rulings do not reflect the judge's opinion of the case or whether the judge favours or does not favour the evidence or the question to which there has been an objection.

6. It is the duty of a jury to decide the weight or importance of evidence allowed by the judge. Jurors are also the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, that is, of whether their testimony is believable. In considering credibility, the jury may take into account the witnesses' opportunity and ability to observe the events about which they are testifying, their memory and manner while testifying, the reasonableness of their testimony when considered in the light of all the other evidence in the case.

Date: 2015-12-18; view: 2257