The jury jury , or trial by jury , is a legal process in which a jury makes a decision or fact finding. This is distinguished from a court where a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.
Jury trials are used in a significant section of serious criminal cases in almost all valid legal legal systems (Singapore, for example, are exceptions), and judges or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal system of many civil law countries for the case criminal. Only the United States routinely uses jury trials in non-criminal cases. The jurisdiction of other common law law uses jury trials only in a very elected class of cases that are a small part of the entire civil draft (such as evil prosecution and fake prison clothes in England and Wales), but the actual civil jury trial is almost completely no where else in the world. Nevertheless, some civil law jurisdictions have an arbitration panel in which members who are not legally trained decide cases in a particular subject area relevant to the area of ​​expertise of the arbitration board members.
The availability of judges by juries in American jurisdictions varies. Since the United States legal system was separate from the British legal system at the time of the American Revolution, the type of process that the jury uses depended on whether such cases were tried by a jury under British law at the time rather than the methods used in the present English Courts. For example, at the time, English "court of law" sought cases of lawsuits or private law for monetary damages by a jury, but an "equity court" attempting a civil case seeking orders or other forms of non-monetary aid was not. As a result, this practice continues in American civil law, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some checks are likely to be heard by the jury.
The use of jury trials, which evolved in the common law system and not the civil legal system, has a major impact on the nature of American civil procedure and the rules of criminal procedure, even if bench courts are actually considered in certain cases. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly prosecuted has led to a system in which facts are found to be concentrated in one trial and not a double court, and an appeal review of court decisions is limited. Jury trials are much less important (or not important) in countries that do not have a common legal system.
Video Jury trial
History
Greek
Ancient Athens had a mechanism, called dicastaÃÆ' , to ensure that no one could choose a jury for their own trial. For normal cases, the court consists of dikastai up to 500 residents. For capital cases - involving death, loss of liberty, alienation, loss of civil rights, or confiscation of property - trials are conducted before a jury of 1,001 to 1,501 dikastai . In such a large jury, the rules of unanity will become unrealistic, and the verdict is achieved by the majority. The jury is appointed by many. The jurists create ceramic disks with a central axis: the hollow or sturdy shaft. Thus the way they vote is kept secret because lawyers will hold their disks with axis with thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether the shaft is hollow or solid. Since the Periclean period, the jurists were compensated because they sat in court, with a wage amount of one day.
The judiciary by the jury is ritually described by Aeschylus in Eumenides, the third and final drama of the Oresteia trilogy. In the drama, the innovation was brought by the goddess Athena, who summoned twelve residents to sit on the jury. Apollo god took part in the trial as an advocate for defendants Orestes and Furies as the prosecutor for the murdered Clytaemnestra. In the case of a jury divided by six to six, and Athena dictates that in such a case, the subsequent verdict must be for liberation.
Roma
From the beginning of the republic and in most civil cases near the end of the empire, there were courts with the features of the jury, Roman judges civil, lay and unprofessional. The capital court is held in front of a jury consisting of hundreds or thousands of people on commodity or centuries, just like in Roman court. Roman law is reserved for the annual election of judges, who will be responsible for resolving disputes by acting as judges, with a pretender who performs many of the tasks of a judge. High government officials and their families are prohibited from acting as judges, due to a conflict of interest. Those who were previously found guilty of serious crimes (serious crimes) are also prohibited such as hired gladiators, who may be hired to settle disputes through trial by battle. The law is as follows:
"The peregrine praetors (literally, travel judges) within the next ten days after this law passed by persons or plebs shall provide for the election of 450 persons in this State who have or have had a knight census... provided he does not vote a person who or has become a runaway tribune, quaestor, triumvir capitalist, military stand in one of the first four legions, or triumvir to grant and assign land, or existing or already in the Senate, or who have fought or must fight as gladiators for hired... or that has been condemned by the judicial and trial proceedings in which he or she can not be registered in the Senate, or less than thirty or more than sixty years of age, or who has no place of residence in the city of Rome or within a mile from that place, or who the father, brother or son of the judge mentioned above, or who is the father, brother or son of someone who has a member of the Senate, or who is abroad. "
Holy Roman Empire
The Swabian Ordinance of 1562 requested jury calling, and various methods were used in Emmendingen, Oppenau, and Oberkirch. The 1442 Hauenstein Charter guaranteed the right to be tried in all cases by 24 equal colleagues, and at Friburg the jury consisted of thirty citizens and board members. The modern jury trial was first introduced in the provinces of Rhenish in 1798, with a court of most of the twelve citizens (Bundesliga BÃÆ'¼rger ).
The system in which citizens are tried by their elected colleagues from all communities in open courts is gradually replaced by "tyranny and oppression machines" in Germany, where the process of inquiry is secret and life and freedom depends on state-appointed judges. In Constance the jury trial was suppressed by the decision of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1786. The Frankfurt Constitution of the failed Revolution of 1848 called for jury trials for "more serious crimes and all political violations", but never implemented after the Frankfurt Parliament was dissolved by the WÃÆ'¼rttemberg dragoons. An 1873 draft of the criminal procedure produced by the French Justice Ministry proposes to abolish the jury and replace it with a mixed system, which causes significant political debate. In the Weimar Republic, the jury was abolished by the Emminger Reform on 4 January 1924.
Between 1948 and 1950 in German occupied America and the Federal Republic of Germany, Bavaria returned to the jury trial because it existed before the emergency decree, but they were re-deleted by the 1950 Unification Act ( Vereinheitlichungsgesetz ) for the Federal Republic. In 1979, the United States attempted to flight MANY East Germany 165 to hijack a suspect in the United States Court for Berlin in West Berlin, which stated the defendant had the right to a jury trial under the United States Constitution, and was therefore tried by the West German Juries.
England and Wales
According to George Macaulay Trevelyan in Brief History of England during the Viking occupation: "Scandinavia, when not on the Viking war line, is a law-conscious and cohabiting person in the 'thing' to hear arguments law, they have no professional lawyers, but many of their peasant-fighters, like Njal, the truth teller, learn the habits of the people and in complicated judicial procedures A Danish city in England often has, as its chief officer. , twelve 'men of the law'. Denmark introduced the custom of making committees among free men in court, which might make Britain a favorable place for the future growth of the jury system of Frank's custom which was later introduced by Normandy. "The King of England Æ' th thelred the Unready made the initial legal system through the Code of Will of Ethelred, a provision stating that twelve prominent leaders (small nobility) of each wapentake (small district) must swear that they will investigate crimes without bias.The juries differ from the modern ones by being informants themselves rather than getting information through the courts, the jury is asked to investigate the case itself.
In the 12th century, Henry II took a major step in developing the jury system. Henry II set up a system to resolve land disputes using the jury. The jury of twelve free men is assigned to arbitrate in this dispute. Like the Saxon system, these people are accused of exposing the facts of their own cases rather than listening to arguments in court. Henry II also introduced what is now known as the "grand jury" through Assize of Clarendon. Under assize, free jurors were indicted for reporting any crime they knew in their hundred as "just judges," judges moving among hundreds of people on a circuit. A criminal alleged by this jury is given a trial by trial.
The Church forbade the participation of clerics in trials through trials in 1215. Without the legitimacy of religion, the trial with trials failed. The jury under assizes begins to decide on guilt as well as giving charges. In the same year, the trial by the jury became an explicit right in one of the most influential clauses in Magna Carta. Article 39 of Magna Carta reads:
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, super eum ibimus nec, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. This is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Court by the Jury : "No free person shall be arrested, and or imprisoned, or crucified of his freehold, and or his liberty, or free of charge, or prohibited, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we fight it with force or continue against it by arms, but by the legitimate judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the state. and or by state law , this can not be interpreted as if it were sufficient to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen. State law is a consuetudinary law, based on the customs and consent of John's subjects, and since they have no Parliament at that time, it means that neither the king nor the barons can make the law without the consent of the people. According to some sources, at the time of Edward III, by the law of the land had been replaced by an arbitrary legal process , which at that time was an experiment by twelve peers.
The Magna Carta 1215 is further guaranteed trial by the jury by stating that
For trivial offenses, free people should be fined only in proportion to the extent of the offense, and for serious offenses simultaneously, but not too much to remove from their livelihood. In the same way, a trader will be spared from his wares, and a husband carrying out his ranch, if they fall into the mercy of the royal palace. None of these penalties shall be levied except by an assessment of the oath of persons of good standing in the neighborhood.
Earls and barons will only be fined by their equals, and comparable to the weight of their violations.
To whomever we have seized or seized the land, castle, freedom, or right, without a valid assessment of its equivalent, we will immediately return it.
If we have taken or removed the people of Wales from the land, liberty, or anything in England or in Wales, without the legitimate judgment of the equal, it is to be returned to them at once. A dispute about this should be determined in March by an equal decision. English law applies to land ownership in England, Wales law to people in Wales, and Marches law to those in Marches. The Welsh will treat us and us in the same way.
During the mid-14th century, people sitting in the Presenting Jury (ie, in the modern language, the Grand Jury) were forbidden to sit in a jury trial for the crime. 25 Edward III stat 5., c3 (1353). Medieval jurors informed themselves that people were chosen as jurors because they knew the parties and the facts, or they had the task of finding them. This frees the government's cost of fact-finding. Over time, British jurors became less self-informed and relied more heavily on the trial itself to get information about the case. The jury remained free to investigate their own case until the 17th century. The Magna Carta is forgotten after the succession of good governance (or, more likely, the government is limited by juries and barons, and only under the rule of law that jurors and barons are acceptable), kings, through royal judges, begin to expand their control over the jury and the kingdom. In David Hume's History of England, he tells us something about the power that kings ruled in the aftermath of Magna Carta, the crown prerogative and the source of the great power that these kings counted:
One of the most ancient and most established instruments of power is the Star Chamber Court, which has unlimited powers to fine, imprison, and impose physical punishment, and whose jurisdiction is extended to all sorts of abuses, humiliations and distractions, which are not within the scope of the law general. These court members consist of juries and judges; men who all enjoyed their offices during the fun: And when the prince himself was present, he was the only judge, and all the others could only intervene in their advice. It is necessary but this one court in any government, to put an end to all regular, legal, and appropriate liberal plans. Because who dared to set himself up against the crown and ministry, or aspire to be a protector of liberty, while exposed to so arbitrary a jurisdiction? I have many questions about whether there is an absolute monarchy in Europe that contains, at this time, so illegally and despotically a court. While so much terror hangs over people, no jury has dared to free a man, when the court decides to punish him. The practice, too, did not confront witnesses with prisoners, giving crown lawyers all the profit imaginable against it. And, indeed, there are hardly any examples, during all these years of government, that sovereignty, or ministers, have ever been disappointed with prosecution. Timid jurors, and judges who hold their posts during pleasure, never fail to both all views of the crown. And since the practice was once a fine, imprisoned, or punished jurors, only at the discretion of the courts, to find decisions contrary to the direction of this dependent judge; it is clear, that the jury at the time was not a way of securing the freedom of the subject.
The first paragraph of the Act that abolished Star Chamber repeats the clause to the right of a citizen to be judged by his colleagues:
Star Space Deletion
July 5, 1641
Actions to organize secret councils, and to take a court commonly called star space.RECALLING by a large charter repeatedly confirmed in parliament, enforced, That no free person shall be taken or imprisoned, or misused for his freedom or freedom, or free custom, or otherwise prohibited or exiled or destroyed. , and that the King will not inflict on him, or punish him; but with a legitimate assessment of his friends, or by state law...
In 1670 two Quakers who were charged with unlawful trial, William Penn and William Mead, were declared innocent by a jury. The judge then fined the jury for insulting the court for repatriating the verdict against their own fact finding and transferring them to jail until the penalty was paid. Edward Bushel, a jury, refused to pay a fine.
Bushel petitioned the General Court for a habeas corpus warrant. The verdict in the Case of Bushel is that a jury can not be punished simply because of the verdict he returned.
Many British colonies, including the United States, adopted a common British legal system in which jury trials are an important part. The jury trial in a criminal case is a right protected in the original United States Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the US Constitution extend the right to be tried by a jury to include the right to a jury trial for both criminal and civil cases and grand jury for serious cases.
Maps Jury trial
Roles
- In the most common legal jurisdiction, the jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case, while the judge determines the law. These "fellow defendants" are responsible for listening to disputes, evaluating proposed evidence, deciding facts, and making decisions according to the rule of law and their jury instructions. Usually, the jury only assesses mistakes or innocent verdicts, but the actual punishment is set by the judge. An interesting innovation introduced in Russia in Alexander II's judicial reform: unlike in modern jury trials, the jury decides not only whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, but they have a third option: "Guilty, but not punishable," Since Alexander II believes that justice without morality is wrong.
- In France and some countries arranged in the same way, a jury and some professional judges sit together to determine the error first. Then, if guilt is determined, they decide on the right punishment.
Some jurisdictions with the jury allow the defendant to override their right to a jury trial, leading to a bench court. Trial trials tend to occur only when crime is taken seriously. In some jurisdictions, such as France and Brazil, jury trials are reserved, and compulsory, for the most serious crimes and not available for civil cases. In Brazil, for example, trials by juries are applied in cases of voluntary crimes against life, such as first and second degree murders, forced abortion and suicide, even if only tried. In other countries, like England, jury trials are only available for very specific criminal and civil case cases (malicious prosecution, civil fraud and fraud imprisonment). In the United States, jury trials are available in civil and criminal cases. In Canada, an individual accused of an offense may be elected to justice by a judge in a provincial court, by a judge alone in a high court, or by a judge and a jury in a higher court; summary violations can not be tried by a jury.
In the United States, since jury trials tend to stand out, the general public tends to overstate the frequency of jury trials. Approximately 150,000 court jurors are conducted in state courts every year, and an additional 5,000 jury trials are conducted in federal courts. Two thirds of jury trials are criminal trials, while one-third are civil and "other" (eg, family, city rules, traffic). However, most criminal cases are resolved by bargaining pleas, which eliminates the need for a jury trial.
Some commentators argue that the guilty plea system unfairly forces the defendant to give up their right to a jury trial. Others argue that there has never been a golden age of the jury, but that the jury in the early nineteenth century (before the advent of bargaining) was "unwittingly and reflexively, generally wasteful of public resources and, in the absence of trained professionals, little more than demand the slow guilt itself, and that the guilty plea system that emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century was a superior, more cost-effective method for achieving fair results.
Pros and cons
In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as important checks on state power. Another general statement about the benefit of a trial by a jury is that it provides a means to insert norms and values ​​of society into the judicial process and that it legitimizes the law by providing an opportunity for citizens to validate criminal laws in their application to a particular court. Alexis de Tocqueville also claimed that the jury trial educated citizens about self-government. Many also believe that the jury is likely to give a more sympathetic, or fairer, session to parties that are not part of the government - or other stewardship interests - rather than state representatives.
This last point is debatable. For example, in highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to punish based on personal feelings rather than on unconditional beliefs. In France, the former lawyer, then Justice Minister Robert Badinter, told the jury trial in France that they were like "boarding a ship into a storm", because they were much more predictable than the court.
Another problem with jury trials is the potential of the jury to be affected by prejudice, including racial considerations. Famous cases include Scottsboro boys, a group of nine African-American teenagers accused of raping two white American women on a train in 1931, where they were charged by white jury, the release of two white men Roy Bryant and JW Milan by an all-white jury for the 14-year-old Emmett Till killing in 1955 (they admitted killing him in a magazine interview a year later), and a 1992 trial in the Rodney King case in California, where white police officers freed excessive force in the beating of a black man by a jury consisting mostly of whites without a black jury.
Positive beliefs about jury trials in the US and US contrast with popular beliefs in many other countries, where it is considered strange and risky for a person's fate to be left in the hands of an untrained person. Consider Japan, for example, who used to have a jury of choice for capital or other serious crimes between 1928 and 1943. The defendant can freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by a judge, and a jury's decision is not binding. During this period the Government was terminated, arguably derived from the popular belief that any defendant who risked his fate on the opinion of an untrained person is almost certainly guilty.
Jury trials in multi-cultural countries with a history of ethnic tensions may be problematic, and lead to juries that are too biased and partial.
The main problem in the jury trials is the secret nature of the process. While advocates may say that secrecy allows jurors to remain impartial by protecting them from undue pressure or attention, opponents argue that this prevents no transparent hearing. The fact that jurors do not often have to give a reason for their verdict is also criticized, as opponents argue it is unfair for a person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without being told why it was done. Conversely when there is a decision by a judge or judge, they are asked to provide the often-detailed reasons of the facts and laws about why their decision was made.
One problem that has been raised is the ability of the jury to fully understand the statistical or scientific evidence. It has been said that the jury's expectations of the power of explanation from scientific evidence have been put forward by television in what is known as the CSI effect. In at least one English trial, misuse or misunderstanding or misinterpretation by statistical prosecution has led to false beliefs.
In various jurisdictions
Australia
The Australian Constitution states that: "80. The tribunal on the charge of any offense against any Commonwealth law must be perpetrated by a jury, and any such tribunal shall be held in the State where the offense is committed, and if the offense is not committed in any State of the proceeding shall be held in the place or place as prescribed by Parliament. "
The first tribunal by the 12th jury in the New South Wales colony was held in 1824, following the decision of the NSW Supreme Court on October 14, 1824. The NSW Constitution Act of 1828 effectively terminated the trial by a jury for criminal matters. Juries of judges for criminal issues are revived with the ratification of the Jurisdiction Decision Act in 1833 (NSW) (2 William IV No. 12).
Challenging jury candidates
The voir dire system of checking the jury before the election is not allowed in Australia for violating the privacy of the jury. Therefore, although there is, the right to challenge because during the jury selection can not be used much. The peremptory challenge is usually based on an advisory hunch and no reason is necessary to use it. However, all Australian countries allow for a peremptory challenge in jury selection, however, the number of challenges given to advisors in each state are not all the same. Until 1987, New South Wales had twenty challenges obeyed for each side where the offense was murder, and eight for all other cases. In 1987 it was downgraded to three challenges per side by side, the same amount allowed in South Australia. Eight peremptory challenges are allowed for both counsels for all offenses in Queensland. Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow for six people. Western Australia allows five peremptory challenges per side.
Majority and unanimous decision in criminal court
In Australia, most decisions are allowed in South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland, while ACT demands a unanimous decision. Since 1927, South Australia has authorized the 11: 1, 10: 1 or 9: 1 decision in which the jury has been reduced, in criminal proceedings if the unanimous decision can not be reached within four hours. They are accepted in all cases except for "guilty" verdicts in which the defendant is tried for murder or treason. Victoria has accepted the majority decision with the same conditions since 1994, although the discussion should last for six hours before a majority decision can be made. Western Australia received a majority ruling in 1957 for all courts except where the crime was murder or had a life sentence. 10: 2 Decision accepted. The majority of 10: 2 rulings have been allowed in Tasmania since 1936 for all cases except murder and betrayal if a unanimous decision has not been made within two hours. Since 1943 the verdict of "innocence" for murder and betrayal has also been included, but should be discussed for six hours. The Northern Territory has authorized the 10: 2, 10: 1 and 9: 1 and 10: 1 since 1963 rulings and makes no distinction between cases whether the charge is murder or not. Deliberation should be done at least six hours before giving the majority decision. The Queensland Jury Act 1995 (s 59F) allows a majority ruling for all crimes except for killing and other offenses that carry life sentences, even though only 11: 1 or 10: 1 are the majority allowed. The majority of verdicts were introduced in New South Wales in 2006. In New South Wales, the majority decision can only be returned if the jury consists of at least 11 juries and deliberations have occurred at least 8 hours or for the period considered by the court reasoned by observing the nature and complexity of the case. In addition, the court must be satisfied through the examination of one or more of the jurors who swear, that the unanimous verdict will not be reached if further deliberation will occur.
Austria
Austria, along with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains judicial elements by jury in serious criminal cases.
Belgium
Belgium, together with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains trial by juries through the Assize Court for serious criminal cases and political crimes and press offenses (except those based on racism or xenophobia), and for international crimes of law, such as genocide and crime against humanity.
Canada
Under Canadian law, a person has the constitutional right to a jury trial for all crimes punishable by five years or more in jail. The Criminal Code also grants the right to conduct a jury trial of most of the alleged offenses, including penalties that can be sentenced to less than five years in prison, even if the right is constitutionally perpetuated for violations punishable by five years or more. Generally, defendants are entitled to choose whether their proceedings will be processed by justice or by judges and judges; However, for the most severe criminal offenses - murder, treason, worrying Your Honor, intimidating Parliament, inciting for insurrection, incitement, and hijackings by a jury are mandatory unless the prosecution approves the trial by the judge only.
Exhaustion of the panel of Judges Section Criminal Code Section 642 (1): If a full jury and an alternative judge can not be provided, the court may order the sheriff or other officer, at the request of the prosecutor, to call without delaying as many as the person appointed by court for the purpose of giving a full jury and an alternative judge. Section 642 (2): The jury may be summoned under paragraph (1) by word of mouth, if necessary. Section 642 (3): Names of persons summoned under this Section shall be added to the general panel for the purposes of the proceeding, and the same process with respect to its calling, challenge, pardon and direction shall apply to them..
According to the case of Rv Mid-Valley Tractor Sales Limited (1995 CarswellNB 313), there is a limit to the powers granted by Section 642. This power is given exclusively to judges, and part does not provide further discretion to delegate powers it's to someone else, like a sheriff's officer, even with a lawyer's approval. The court said that to declare otherwise would invalidate the rights of the accused and the prosecution to refuse a person who is unlawfully excused, and could also disrupt the rights of the parties to challenge for reasons. The selection of an impartial judge is the basis of a fair trial. The Supreme Court of Canada is also held at Basarabas and Spek v The Queen (1982 SCR 730) that the right of the accused to appear in court during all his trials includes the jury selection process. In Tran v The Queen (1994 2 SCR 951), it was stated that the defendant should only show that they were expelled from the proceedings that affected their vital interests, they did not have to demonstrate the real prejudice, only the potential for prejudice. In addition, the legitimate release of such rights must be clear, firm and conducted with full knowledge of the rights to which protective procedures are in place, as well as the effects to be given to those rights.
French
In France, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial only when prosecuted for crime ( crime in French). Crime includes all offenses that carry a prison sentence of at least 10 years (for individuals) or a fine of EUR75,000 (for legal entities). The only court tried by the jury is the cour d'assises, where three professional judges sit together with six or nine jurors (on appeal). Confidence requires a two-thirds majority (four or six votes).
Greek
The state that initiated the jury judicial concept maintained it in an unusual form. Serious crimes in Greece are judged by a panel of three professional judges and four lay judges who decide the facts, and the right punishment if they punish.
Gibraltar
Being Common Law jurisdictions, Gibraltar maintains a jury trial in a manner similar to that found in England and Wales, the exception being that the jury consists of nine laymen instead of twelve.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong, as a former British colony has a common law legal system. Article 86 of the Hong Kong Constitution, which came into force on 1 July 1997 after the transfer of Hong Kong from Britain to China gave: "The principle of trial by a jury previously practiced in Hong Kong must be maintained."
The criminal court in the Court of Appeal is conducted by a jury. The jury is generally comprised of seven members, who can return a verdict based on a five majority.
There is no jury in the District Court, which can punish up to seven years in prison. This is despite the fact that all court rooms in the District Court have jury boxes. The lack of a jury in the District Court has been heavily criticized. Clive Grossman SC in comments in 2009 said the level of confidence was "approaching North Koreans".
Many complex commercial cases are prosecuted in the District Court rather than before a jury in the High Court. In 2009, Lily Chiang, former chairman of the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce, lost the appeal to move her case from District Court to Court of Appeal for the jury trial. Justice Wright in the Court of First Instance states that there is no absolute right to trial by the jury and that "the decision whether a justifiable offense be tried in a Court of First Instance by a judge and a jury or in a District Court by a judge is the prerogative of the Secretary of Justice." issued a statement saying "he is disappointed with the verdict because he has been revoked from the jury trial, the opportunity to be assessed by fellow citizens and constitutional benefits protected by the Constitution".
In a civil case in the Court of First Instance, a jury is available for defamation, false imprisonment, prosecution or malicious seduction unless the court orders otherwise. The jury can return the majority decision in a civil case.
India
The first case decided by a British jury in India took place in Madras in 1665, where Ascentia Dawes (possibly a British woman) was charged by the jury with the murder of her slave girl, and a small jury, with six British and six Portuguese, not guilty. With the development of the Indian East India empire, the jury system is implemented in a dual court system: In the City of the Presidency (Calcutta, Madras, Bombay), there is a Crown Court and in criminal cases jurors must judge British and European people ) and in some cases Indians; and in areas outside the City of Presidency (called "moffussil"), there is a Company Court (compiled with Company officials) without a jury to assess most cases that imply indigenous peoples.
After the Mahkota Indian Government (Raj) adopted the Indian Criminal Code (1860) and the Criminal Procedure Code in India (1861, amended in 1872, 1882, 1898), criminal juries were only required in City Superior Court of the Presidency; elsewhere, it is optional and seldom used. According to sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code, juries consist of 3 (for smaller offenses judged in court sessions) to 9 (for judges of gross violations in the Court of Appeal) men; and when the defendant is European or American, at least half of the jury must be European or American.
The jury did not find a place in the 1950 Indian Constitution, and it was ignored in many Indian states. The Law Commission recommended its abolition in 1958 in the 14th Report. The jury trials were removed in India in most courts except for the Matrimonial Disputes of Parsis by a very different process during the 1960s, which ended with the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, which is still in force today.
The Parsis in India can use the Jury System to decide divorces where randomly selected members called 'delegates' of the community decide on the fact of a Parsis marital dispute. The jury system for the Matrimonial Parsi dispute case is a mixture of Panchayat systems and Jury systems found in US states and others. The laws governing this are `The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 'as amended in 1988.
In the absence of appropriate studies comparing the existing judicial system and with no effort to improve the system, it is claimed that the liberation of the Nanavati 8: 1 Kawas in K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, which was abrogated by a high court on the grounds that the jury was misled by the presiding judge and vulnerable to media and public influence, is the reason. A study by Elisabeth Kolsky argues that many of the "bad verdicts" submitted by white jurors in trials against "British Europeans" accused of murder, assault, confinement of Indians.
ireland
In the Republic of Ireland, general jurisdiction of jury, jury court is available for criminal cases before the Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and defamation case, consisting of twelve juries.
The jury only decides questions of fact; they have no role in criminal penalties in a criminal case or provide damages in case of defamation. It is not necessary that a jury has a unanimous vote in his verdict. In civil cases, a decision can be reached by a majority of nine out of twelve members. In a criminal case, the verdict does not need to be agreed on where no fewer than eleven jurors should if ten of them approve the decision after considering the case for a reasonable time.
The jury is selected from the panel of judges, randomly selected by county registrars from the voters list. The main law governing the election, duties and behavior of the jurors is the 1976 Jury Act as amended by the Civil Code (Other Provisions) of the 2008 Act, which removes the upper limit of 70. The jury is not paid nor receives travel expense. They receive lunch for the days they serve; however, for working jurors, their employers are required to pay for it as if they were at work.
For certain terrorist and organized crime offenses, the Director of Public Prosecution may issue a certificate that the defendant is tried by a Special Criminal Court consisting of three judges, not a jury, one from the District Court, Circuit Court and the Court of Appeal.
Italy
Corte d'Assise consists of 2 judges and 6 laymen chosen randomly among Italian citizens aged 30 to 65 years. Only serious crimes like murder could be tried by Corte d'Assise.
Japanese
On May 28, 2004, the Japanese Diet enacted a law requiring elected citizens to take part in criminal trials of certain serious crimes to make joint decisions with professional judges, whether by mistake or by punishment. This resident is called saiban-in (??? "lay judge"). The saiban-in system was implemented in May 2009.
New Zealand
New Zealand previously required a jury decision to be ratified unanimously, but since the passing of the Criminal Procedure Bill in 2009, the Jury Act Act of 1981 has allowed the verdict to be passed by a less-than-full majority of jurors (ie 11-1 or 10-1 ) under certain circumstances.
Norwegian
Norway has a system in which the lower court (tingrett) is governed by a judge and two lay judges, or in larger cases two judges and three lay judges. All these judges punish or release, and organize sentences. A simple majority is necessary in all cases, which means that the lay judges are always in control.
In the higher court/appeals court (lagmannsrett) there is a jury (lagrette) of 10 members, who require at least seven votes to be punished. The judges have no say in the jury's judgment, but the jury's instruction is given by the jury (lagmann) in each case to the jury before consideration. Voir-dire is usually arranged with 16 jurors, whom prosecutors and defense lawyers can fire 6 people they do not want to jury.
This court (lagmannsretten) is administered by a panel of three judges (usually 1 lagmann and 2 lagdommere), and if 7 or more jurors wish to punish, the punishment is organized in a separate process, consisting of three judges and a jury. foreman (lagrettens ordfÃÆ'¸rer) and three other jurors selected by ballot. In this way the layman takes control of both conviction and punishment, since a simple majority is required in punishment.
The three-judge panel may override the jury's verdict or release if there is a clear injustice. In the event, the case was resolved by three judges and four lay judges.
In May 2015, the Norwegian Parliament asked the government to end jury trials, replacing them with a meddomsrett court consisting of two judges who were trained in law and three lay judges (lekdommere). It has not been fully implemented in February 2016, but is expected soon.
Russian
In the Russian court, for serious crimes the defendant has the option of a jury trial of 12 judges. The number of jury trials remains small, around 600 per year, out of about 1 million trials. A jury must be 25 years old, legally competent, and without criminal record. The 12 judges are selected by prosecutors and defenders from a list of 30-40 eligible candidates. The Russian Constitution stipulates that, until the abolition of the death penalty, all defendants in cases that may result in the death penalty are entitled to a jury trial. MPs continuously cut off types of criminal offenses such as jury trials.
They are similar to common law jurors, and unlike lay judges, as they sit separately from judges and decide questions about facts while the judge determines legal questions. They must return a unanimous verdict during the first 3 hours of deliberation, but can restore the majority decision after that, with 6 judges enough to be released. They may also request that the judge indicate leniency in the sentence.
The jury has given a free verdict in 15-20% of cases, compared with less than 1% in cases decided by the judge. The jury may be dismissed and a skeptical jury has been dismissed on the verge of verdict, and exemptions are often canceled by a higher court.
The court by the jury was first introduced in the Russian Empire as a result of Judicial Reform of Alexander II in 1864, and abolished after the October Revolution of 1917. They were reintroduced in the Russian Federation in 1993, and expanded to 69 other territories in 2003. Its reintroduction was opposed by Attorney General.
Singapore
Singapore completely abolished the jury system in 1969, although trials of jury for non-capital offenses were abolished a decade earlier. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, a former lawyer, explained why he supported the policy to the BBC and in his memoirs, saying, "I have no confidence in the system that allows superstition, ignorance, bias, and prejudices from seven judges to determine guilt or not guilty. "
South Africa
The jury system was abolished in South Africa in 1969 by the Jury Elimination Act, 1969. The last juror's trial to be heard was in Kimberley District. Some court experts argued that a white jury system (like the system at the time) was essentially harming the 'non-white' defendant (the introduction of a non-racial jury would be a political impossibility at the time). It has recently been argued that, in addition to being a racially divided country, South African society, and still, is characterized by significant class differences and disparities in income and wealth that can re-create the system of problem judges. The argument for and against the re-introduction of the jury system has been discussed by South African constitution expert Professor Pierre de Vos in the article "Do we need a jury system?" On March 28, 2014, the Oscar Pistorius trial was postponed due to the illness of one of the two assessors who assisted the judge on a fact (not legal) question, on the jury, to reach a verdict. The legal system in Britain sees no reason to block this extradition, as witnessed in the case of Shrien Dewani.
Swedish
In Sweden, the jury is rare; the public is represented in court through a lay judge (nÃÆ'¤mndemÃÆ'¤n). However, the defendant has the right to a jury trial in the lower courts (tingsrÃÆ'¤tt) when accused of violating the constitution of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. If a person is accused of eg defamation or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, in media covered by the constitution (eg print or radio program), he has the right to be accused of being tried by a jury of nine jurors. This applies also in civil cases (tort) under the basic law. The majority of at least six jurors must find that the defendant has committed an alleged crime. Otherwise the defendant is acquitted or, in a civil case, irresponsible. If the majority of juries contend that the crime has actually been committed, this finding is not legally binding for the courts; thus, the court (three judges) can still free the defendant or find him irresponsible. Jury exemption can not be rejected upon appeal. In the Swedish civil process, "English rules" apply to court costs. Previously, a court that disagreed with the jury's verdict could, when deciding on such fees, set aside the English rule, and instead use the American rule , that each party bears the cost of its own litigation. This practice is found to violate the presumption of innocent rules under section 6.2. The European Convention on Human Rights, by the Swedish Supreme Court, in 2012.
Switzerland
In 2008, only the criminal procedure code of Cantonese Geneva provided for the original jury court. Some other cantons - Vaud, NeuchÃÆ'Â ¢ tel, Zürich and Ticino - provide courts of professional judges and laymen ( SchÃÆ'¶ffengerichte tribunaux d'ÃÆ'Â © chevins ). Because the Swiss Criminal Code united (to be enforced in 2011) does not provide for jury trials or civil judges, however, they are likely to be abolished in the near future.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom consists of three separate legal jurisdictions, but there are some common features for all of them. In particular, rarely is such a horrific voir system of the United States; the jury is usually only accepted without question. Controversially, in the UK there are several screenings in sensitive security cases, but Scottish courts firmly regulate themselves against any form of jury examination.
England and Wales
In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), all persons charged with offenses carrying more than six months imprisonment have the right to be tried by a jury. Minor ("Summary only") criminal case heard without a jury in the Magistrates Court. A middle-level officer ("may be copied well") may be tried by a judge or a defendant may elect a court by a jury in the Crown Court. Serious offenses ("alleged"), however, must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court. The juries sit in some civil cases, limited by false penalties, malicious prosecutions, and civil fraud (unless ordered otherwise by a judge). The jury also sits in a coronary court for a more controversial examination. All the criminal juries consist of 12 juries, they are in the District Court having 8 juries and the Coroner Court jury has between 7 and 11 members. The jury must be aged between 18-75 years, and randomly selected from the voter list. In the past, a unanimous decision was required. This has been altered so that, if the jury fails to approve after a certain period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10-2 majority. This is designed to make it difficult for the jury to succeed.
In 1999, Home Secretary Jack Straw introduced a controversial bill to limit the right to be tried by a jury. This became the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, which sought to abolish the right to be tried by a jury for cases involving damaging juries or elaborate fraud. The provision of a court without a jury to avoid jury interference was successful and came into force in 2007, provisions for complex fraud cases were defeated. Lord Goldsmith, later to become Attorney General, then pressed forward with the Fraud Bill (Court of Judgment) in Parliament, which sought to abolish the jury trial in a large criminal deception trial. The bill was subject to sharp criticism from both sides of the House of Commons before passing the second Commons reading in November 2006, but was defeated at Lords in March 2007.
The trial for the first serious offense to be tried without jury for 350 years was permitted to resume in 2009. The three previous trials of the defendants have been terminated due to jury interference, and Chief Justice, Judge of God, cites additional fees and burdens on judges as excuses to continue without a jury. Earlier in cases where juror disturbance was a concern the jury was sometimes confined to a hotel during the trial. However, Freedom policy director Isabella Sankey said that "This is a dangerous precedent.The right to a jury trial is not only a sanctified principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people does not sit on trial over another and that the public has confidence in an open and representative.
The trial began in 2010, with four defendants convicted on March 31, 2010 by Mr. Justice Treacy at Old Bailey.
Scotland
In Scottish law, the jury system has some similarities with the UK but some important differences, in particular there is a jury of 15 in criminal court, with a decision by a simple majority.
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, the jury's role is roughly similar to England and Wales except that a jury trial has been replaced in the case of alleged terrorist infringement by a court in which the judge sits alone, known as a Diplck court. Courts are commonly held in Northern Ireland for crimes related to terrorism.
The Diplock courts were created in the 1970s during The Troubles, to end Operation Demetrius operations, and because of the argument that the jurors were intimidated, though this was disputed. The Diplock Courts closed in 2007, but between August 1, 2008 and July 31, 2009, 13 non-jury courts were held, down from 29 in the previous year, and 300 trials per year at its peak.
United States
The most notable feature in the United States is that a decision in a criminal case must be approved.
Any person accused of a crime punishable by detention for more than six months has a constitutionally protected right to a court by a jury, which appears in the federal court of Article Three of the Constitution of the United States, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes.. will be a jury, and the Tribunal will be held in the State where the Crime has been committed. "The right is expanded by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states in part," In all criminal prosecutions the defendant will enjoy the right to a quick and open trial , by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime has been committed. "The two provisions were made applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitution of most states also grants jury judicial rights in lower criminal matters, although most have abrogated that right in violation punishable by a fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, a court by a jury is not required, which means a country may choose whether or not to allow the court by a jury in the case. According to the Federal Criminal Procedure Rules, if the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, he may set aside his right to have a jury, but both the government (prosecution) and the court must agree to the waiver. Some countries require jury trials for all crimes, "minor" or not.
In cases of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 US 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington 542 US 296 (2004), the United States Supreme Court declared that the criminal defendant had the right to a jury trial not only on a guilty question or not, but any facts used to increase the sentence of the defendant exceeded the maximum allowed by laws or sentencing guidelines. This cancels procedures in many states and federal courts that allow increased penalties based on "greater evidence", in which improvements can be based on judge findings only. Depending on the country, the jury must agree to a guilty or innocent decision. The results of the jury suspended by the defendant were acquitted, but the accusations against the defendant were not dropped and could be recovered if the state voted.
Juries in selected countries are selected through voter registration and driver's license list. Forms are sent to prospective jurors to qualify them by asking recipients to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, the ability to understand English, and whether they have a requirement that will forgive them for a jury. If they are considered eligible, a call is given.
The common law of the United Kingdom and the Constitution of the United States recognizes the right to a jury trial as a fundamental civil liberty or civil right which allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by a judge or jury.
In the United States, it is understood that the jury usually considers evidence and testimony to determine the fact question, while the judge usually decides on legal matters, although different judges in the Supreme Court case Sparf et al. v. US 156 US 51 (1895), is generally regarded as an important case concerning the rights and powers of the jury, stating: "This is our deep and persisting belief, confirmed by reexamination of the authorities that the jury, on a common problem of guilt or not guilty in criminal cases, have the right, as well as power, to decide, according to their own judgment and conscience, all questions, whether laws or facts, involved in the issue. " The judge's determination of legal questions, sometimes referred to as a cancellation jury, can not be undone by a judge if it would violate legal protection against double harm. Although a judge may award a guilty verdict if not supported by evidence, a jurist does not have the authority to override a decision favoring the defendant.
It was established in the Bushel Case that a judge can not order a jury to punish, no matter how strong the evidence is. In civil cases, a special decision may be granted, but in a criminal case, a general verdict is granted, as requiring a special judgment may put pressure on the jury, and because the historic function of the jury from the tempering rule of law by common sense is brought to bear on the basis of certain facts of the case. For this reason, Black Judges and Justice Douglas expressed their disagreement with specific interrogators even in civil cases.
There is much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of jury systems, the competence or lack of juries as fact-finders, and the uniformity or irregularity of the justice they manage. The jury has been described by one author as "an exciting and handsome experiment in serious human affairs". Because they are fact-finders, juries are sometimes expected to perform roles similar to lie detectors, especially when presented with testimony from witnesses.
A civilian jury usually consists of 6 to 12 people. In a civil case, the jury's role is to hear the evidence presented in court, to decide whether the defendant injured the plaintiff or failed to fulfill the legal obligation to the plaintiff, and to determine compensation or punishment.
The criminal jury usually consists of 12 members, although fewer may sit in cases involving smaller offenses. The criminal judge decides whether the defendant committed the crime as alleged. Sentences may be determined by a judge or judge; In general, in criminal cases, the jury establishes a temporary penalty in smaller offenses may be established by a judge.
The decision in a criminal case should be unanimous, with the exception of the following: Currently, the two states, Oregon and Louisiana, do not require a unanimous decision in a criminal case. Each requires a 10-2 majority for conviction, except for capital crimes: Oregon requires a unanimous decision to be guilty of murder and Louisiana requires all 12. But in Oregon, unlike other countries, a verdict of No Guilt can be contacted in any case murder) with a vote of 10 to 2 or 11 to 1.
In civil cases, laws (or agreements of the parties) may permit unanimous decisions.
A judge's judgment is done personally, invisibly and hearing judges, litigants, witnesses, and others in the courtroom.
Not every case is eligible for a jury trial. In most US states, there is no right to conduct a jury trial in family law actions that do not involve the termination of parental rights, such as divorce and custody changes. Only eleven countries allow juries in various aspects of divorce litigation (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin). Much of this restricts the right for jurors to try out issues of reasons or rights for divorce only. Texas provides the most extensive jury trial rights, including even the right to a jury trial on questions concerning child custody. However, anyone charged with a criminal offense, a breach of contract or a federal offense has a Constitutional right to be tried by a jury.
Civil trial procedure
In the United States, civil action is a lawsuit; civil law is a branch of the common law dealing with non-criminal acts. It should not be
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments