Talk:Jury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removed these 2 History on the use of a jury 3 Cleanup 4 US-specific 5 Page organization 6 England and Wales 7 Australia 8 History of Juries 9 Clarity 10 Hallmark of a Democracy 11 Arguments for and against use of jury system 12 Jury versus Jury Trial 13 Selection 14 Compensation 15 Scientific jury selection 16 Powers of jurors to intervene during trial 17 Instructions by judges to jurors 18 Number of jurours required to reach a verdict 19 Allotment to Jury 20 Selection by electoral roll? 21 Scottish Jury 22 Jury Nullification 23 "finder of fact" 24 Jury box 25 Details on OJ Simpson trial 26 Grand juries 27 History 28 Change 29 US Juries

[edit] Removed these

Moving cleverly cynical but completely NPOV quote from article: save it for an article on Mencken:

"Quote:

"Jury - A group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have failed to fool him." -H.L. Mencken " Vicki Rosenzweig 14:28 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Removed this:

In criminal cases, the right to a jury trial belongs to the defendant; if the defendant decides he or she is likely to do better without a jury, the prosecution cannot insist on one.

That is not the law in all jurisdictions. In Federal Court, for example, the US must waive trial by jury as well as the defendant. 209.149.235.241 20:41, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History on the use of a jury

How about a history in the use of a civil jury to decide for or against? - Jerryseinfeld 19:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

[[== I am Cool You spelt word wrong thank you ' ]]

I added the Cleanup-clarity tag because the article as it stands is pretty confusing due to the lack of structure. At the very least, it needs some headings beside the ones that already exist. Martg76 02:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edited "Jury Nullification" entry to expand and clarify section on England & Wales. Original stated that an acquittal brought about by jury equity was a binding precedent and could change the law. I have softened this slightly. Juries (in criminal trials) sit only in the Crown Court (the lowest of the courts of record). A jury verdict does not set a binding precedent - after all, the jury does not deliver a judgment, so the ratio of the decision is completely unknown. The Clive Ponting decision has been interpreted as a rejection by the jury of the judge's direction on the test of public interest, and is therefore pursuasive authority on the point, but as it would be a contempt of court to ask any of the jurors and publish their reasons, we can never know. (RJ 26 SEP 2006)

[edit] US-specific

A lot of the information seems US-specific. It should be clearly differentiated. Plus, we already have jury trial. I think that all things on trials should be sent to jury trial, and we should keep issues like jury selection, indemnification etc. here. David.Monniaux 19:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page organization

Let's see if we can think of a better organizational structure for the info here and in jury trial:

Jury

1. Composition
2. Procedure
3. National practices

Jury trial

1. Availability / Power / Usage
   1. Criminal cases
   2. Lawsuits
2. Frequency
3. Advantages and disadvantages
4. National practices

• I've made a first stab above, feel free to edit it. 70.58.216.243 00:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good start, except instead of "criminal cases" and "lawsuits", I'd just do with "criminal" and "civil". Tufflaw 01:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think maybe both should be merged into "jury trial" with a redirect from "jury". I have some time coming up soon, maybe I'll start working on that. Tufflaw 01:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] England and Wales

Was not the right of a peer to trial in the House of Lords abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1948? Avalon 11:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you're right - I checked the Act. Will change.

[edit] Australia

A quibble:

What are the "unusual practices" in Australian jury trials, I assume they are pretty much the same as in, say England, Wales and New Zealand. Avalon 22:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

On that note - why is there a link to "National practice: Australia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury#Australia) which doesn't go anywhere? Is this content still around somewhere? (I had a quick look, but couldn't find it.) Assuming this content isn't anywhere else, should this whole line be removed?) Rarosalion

It didn't lead anywhere, so it's begone. And I'd side with Avalon, when I was called up a few years ago, there were about 50 of us, a few got off by arguing with the judge, and a few were quickly rejected without discussion by who I assume were the counsels.--Paul 17:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Juries

The concept of a modern jury trial stems back to Magna Carta, where the right was given in England for nobles to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgement by the king.

While this may be the origin of the concept of modern trials, should there be no mention of the Athenian trial by peers, which could include juries of several hundred free men, such as the Trial of Socrates? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

I agree the clarity of the article is not sufficient. It certainly was very confusing to me, being from a country (India) that no longer has a jury process - the overview section needs to be clarified and take a more bird's-eye view so that it serves to orient the reader first, rather than plunge right into the details.

I found the jury trial article to be more useful and helpful for people referring up "jury" for the first time. I vote that these two articles be merged completely.

[edit] Hallmark of a Democracy

A jury is also a hallmark of a democracy, since its membership is meant to be a random cross-section of society acting as trustee for the whole.

[edit] Arguments for and against use of jury system

Id like to see a section listing the Arguments for and against use of jury system. Most people strongly believe that jury trials are the only possible way of holding a fair trial but there are many countries which dont use them. Among the possible arguments "against" that spring to mind are the inexperience/lack of knowledge of jurors and whether they are able to deal with complex trials, The ease of jury tampering/intimidation, the practical difficulties that sometimes arise in selecting a jury and/or assessing an individuals suitability for jury service, The disruption to jurors personal lives (especially during long trials) and the fact that miscarriages of justice are hardly an unknown phenomonen with jury trials. I would also like to see an explanation of the interpretation/meaning of the term "jury of ones peers". 87.112.89.232 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jury versus Jury Trial

To address the question posed about combining these two terms, I believe they stand on their own as separate items.

While a Jury Trial certainly involves a Jury, they are two distinctly different terms with two distinctly different definitions. The Jury is the group of individuals selected to sit and listen to evidence, the Jury Trial is the process by which the Jury is involved, rather than a Trial by Judge or other "trials".

just my 2 cents,

Wynne Hunkler North Texas

[edit] Selection

It's also worth noting that in at least some jurisdictions [TN for one], that if someone is dismissed from the pool with cause [such as friend or family of the defendent or victim], they won't wait for the jury pool to be exhausted during the without-cause challenges and will instead stop the process, add a replacement, ask him or her the same set of questions that have been asked of the rest of the pool so far, and then continue with the interview of the jury pool. Joncnunn 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation

The article says nothing of compensation for a juror's service. I figure this varies widely between jurisdictions and countries, but an overview is necessary, especially considering that jury duty is nigh compulsory. Any new section would also need to detail protections put in place for jurors in regards to employment, as work is missed while serving on a jury. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific jury selection

I'm planning on writing an article on scientific jury selection (SJS). SJS is a marginal topic, but I have all these sources just sitting here from research I did for my mentor. I might integrate it as a section in Peremptory challenge. My sources are all from the U.S., so I'll note the bias. If anyone has any sources that would help me internationalize this, I'd appreciate it. Any other thoughts?--Kchase02 T 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powers of jurors to intervene during trial

Do individual jurors have the right to interrupt a trial in order to ask questions of counsel and witnesses ? Ive heard that they do (in UK law) but that most people dont realise this and that its rarely explained to jurors that they can do this ?

[edit] Instructions by judges to jurors

One Often hears at the end of a trial of a judge "directing" a jury to Find a client guilty/not guilty. Can a juror ignore such an instruction and what happens if they do ?

[edit] Number of jurours required to reach a verdict

Why is it that in some trials a unanimous verdict is required to convict a defendent and in others a three quarters, two thirds or even simple majority is sufficent ? How is this decided and what criteria are used ?

87.112.89.232 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allotment to Jury

Hi, I read the article, I thought there ought to be a link to articles on random selection by allotment which would take the reader to other links notably Athenian democracy. It looks like someone else has already added it later on! So, I've taken it out from the first line.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure whether a jury must be allotted, or whether there are some jurisdictions where they are selected by some other method.Mike 16:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selection by electoral roll?

I don't think the random jury selection process in the US is based on electoral rolls (at least not in Cook County, Illinois, where I currently live). I am a nonimmigrant visitor to the United States, with a 30-month J1 visa, and I recently received a jury summons notice. The notice stated that non-Citizens should call the Jury Administration to have their summons cancelled. Since I am certainly not on any electoral roll in the US, I must have been selected using other data, such as my Social Security number (however, the SSA should know I am a nonimmigrant, because they printed "Not Authorized to Work" on my card). One of my colleagues received a similar notice last year, and he is also not a US citizen - so the situation is not unusual. Mtford 06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Jury

I noticed the article said something like juries have a fixed number (normally twelve though 6 in special cases). As far as I am aware this is specific to US juries. Scottish juries e.g. have 15 members and I don't believe the UK ever has less than 12 on a jury (though I've not checked). I couldn't work out an easy formula for "normally 12, but scottish 15, but sometimes less.", So I wrote it out in longhand! --Mike 12:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jury Nullification

I've added some information on the trial of the earl of strathmore to jury nullification because it is a nice clear cut case which shows the dilema of the jury. (Would anyone want to hang a man who killed someone purely by accident?)

--Mike 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "finder of fact"

The following paragraph is contradictory:

In common law countries such as England and the United States, the role of the jury is the "finder of fact", while the Judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. Occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.

If the jury is the "finder of fact" then it does not have the right of jury nullification. If it can pass a verdict contrary to the facts (as in the original scottish "Not Guilty" verdict) then then it is not just a finder of fact. The argument is neatly summed up in the Scottish "Not guilty" vs. "Not proven". The first is a statment of guilt irrespective of the facts, the second is a statment of fact.

I've had to tone down the statement "is the 'finder of fact'" to "is described as the 'finder of fact'", since this is undoubtedly true whilst the former isn't (in theory or practice!) --Mike 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jury box

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

"Jury box" redirects here, but there is no information in the article on jury boxes. -- Beland 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details on OJ Simpson trial

Jury selection, and defense attorney Johnny Cochran's mastery of it, was decisive in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. [...] His recently written almost-confession was one of the targets of the lawyers trying to collect damages. Its recent cancellation makes the matter moot.

This block of text, under the 'Selection' heading appears to be entirely unsourced, and could be considered NPOV. I'm reluctant to remove or edit such a huge section myself... would someone with more experience editing this article take a look at it, please? Timcowlishaw 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand juries

The start of the article mentions petit (trial) juries, but does not give any references to the concept of grand juries (formed for the purpose of deciding whether there is a case to answer).

[edit] History

There is no mention of the history of jury trials, only of present day situation

[edit] Change

I made the change here [1] because it is misleading or at least confusing to say "cause an innocent man to die". The law at the time meant he was guilty of murder. While this seems rather strange to us, it was the law and so it's arguable if he was an innocent man. The jury choose to ignore the law. While they undoutedly made the right decision rather then editorialising, it seems best to just summarise the facts, rather then say sya he's innocent Nil Einne 07:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Juries

Conversely, jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in strict confidence. Whether this non-disclosure requirement extends after the verdict has been rendered depends on the jurisdiction. In English law, the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trail or verdict, is considered to be contempt of court, a criminal offence and can result in imprisonment. In the United States, this rule does not apply, and sometimes jurors have made remarks that called into question whether a verdict was properly arrived at.

This section probably should be expanded to mention the way juries in high profile trials in the US are often interviewed and comment. Not just on evidence, deliberations and the verdict mind you but on things like did you like person ABC. Indeed they seem to become mini-celebitries. In fact, I believe some of the Jackson jurors were planning to write books. I think many people from outside the US find the whole thing of juror being interviewed etc somewhat bizzare so it's probably something we should mention more (not the fact that people find it bizzare, that would probably be difficult to source but the fact that it's something unusual means we should cover it in more depth) Nil Einne 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)