Criminal procedure
Criminal trials and convictions
Rights of the accused
Fair trial  · Speedy trial  · Jury trial
Counsel  · Presumption of innocence
Exclusionary rule (U. Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated Criminal law. The rights of the accused is a class of rights that apply to a person in the time period between when they are formally accused of a crime and when they are either convicted or acquitted The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the Rule of law. Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings Right to counsel is nowadays generally regarded as a constituent of the Right to a fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel (i The presumption of innocence being innocent until proven guilty is a legal Right that the Accused in Criminal trials has The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, that holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of S. )
Self-incrimination  · Double jeopardy (Not E&W)
Verdict
Acquittal  · Conviction
Not proven (Scot. Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a Crime for which a person can then be Prosecuted. Double jeopardy (non bis in idem is a Procedural defense (and in many countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico and India In Law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a Jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge In Criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict In Law, a conviction is the Verdict that results when a Court of law finds a Defendant guilty of a Crime. Not proven is a Verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts )  · Directed verdict
Sentencing
Mandatory  · Suspended  · Custodial
Dangerous offender (Can. In Law, a directed Verdict is ruling by a Judge presiding over a Jury trial typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence In Law, a sentence forms the final act of a Judge -ruled process and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function A mandatory sentence is a court decision setting where Judicial discretion is limited by Law. A suspended sentence is a legal construct Unless a minimum punishment is prescribed by law the Court has the power to suspend the passing of sentence (generally A custodial sentence is a judicial sentence imposing a punishment (and hence the resulting punishment itself consisting of mandatory custody of the convict either in prison In Canada, England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer or indefinite term of imprisonment E&W)
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

Trial by jury is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge. Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the Killing of a person by judicial process as Punishment. An execution warrant or death warrant is a warrant which authorizes the execution of a judgment of death ( Capital punishment) on an individual Parole may have different meanings depending on the field and judiciary system Probation is the suspension of all or part of a jail sentence the Criminal who is "on probation" has been convicted of a crime but instead of serving jail Under the criminal law of England and Wales, a tariff is the minimum period that a person serving an indefinite Prison sentence must serve before that person becomes In the British criminal justice system a life licence specifies the conditions under which a prisoner sentenced to life in jail may be released Exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a Crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that Courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a " Civil action " as opposed to A jury a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial Verdict (a finding of fact on a question officially submitted to them A judge, or justice, is an Official who presides over a Court of law It is to be distinguished from a bench trial where a judge or panel of judges make all decisions. A bench trial in US law is a trial before a Judge alone in which the right to a Jury trial has been waived by the necessary parties (or there

English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right; however most other nations do not recognize it as such, because jury trials evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme Law of the United States. thumb| |Broken Liberty Istanbul Archaeology Museum Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the Individual from the Government. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive Civil law or Romano-Germanic law or Continental law is the predominant system of law in the world. Jury trials are of far less importance (or of no importance) in countries that do not have a common law system. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive

Juries weigh the evidence and testimony to determine questions of fact and of law. In Law, a question of fact (also known as a point of fact) is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences In Jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles by an interpretation Jury determination of questions of law, sometimes called jury nullification, may lead to the overturning of a verdict by the judge. In Jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles by an interpretation Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless

A jury trial should not be confused with grand jury proceedings. In the Common law, a grand jury is a type of Jury which determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. In the United States, where grand juries are still used, the jury used for a trial can be referred to as a "petit jury" (or, simply, a "trial jury") to distinguish it from a grand jury, used for indictments. In the Common law legal system an indictment (ɪnˈdaɪtmənt (in-DITE-mint is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense

Contents 1 History of jury trials 2 The role of jury trials 3 Pros and cons 4 Australia 4.1 Challenging potential jurors 4.2 Majority and unanimous verdicts in criminal trials 5 Austria 6 Belgium 7 Canada 8 Germany 9 Greece 10 Gibraltar 11 India 12 New Zealand 13 Russia 14 United Kingdom 14.1 England and Wales 14.2 Scotland 14.3 Northern Ireland 15 United States 15.1 Civil trial procedure 15.2 Waiver of jury trial 16 See also 17 References 17.1 History of the jury

History of jury trials

There existed—in Ancient Athens—a mechanism through which it was assured that no one could elect dikaste for their own trial. For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of 500 citizens. For capital cases, those which involved death, the loss of liberty, exile, the loss of civil rights, or the seizure of property, the trial was before a jury of 1,000 to 1,500 dikastai. It isn’t hard to see why the unanimity rule would be unrealistic in this kind of trial, as well as why it should be unstable as a form of government. From the beginning of the republic and in the majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury, the Roman judges being civilian, lay and not professional. Capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Roman trials.

There exists a connection between England and Rome that goes back to the time of Julius Caesar, when he conquered the southern part of the British isle. How deep was the imprint left by the Roman institutions on the Celts that were romanized is difficult to determine. With the fall of the Roman empire and the following barbarization of the region, historians doubt that Roman customs and laws survived. The arrival of Roman institutions to England is more widely attributed to William the Conqueror and the Normans during times of greater interest in Roman law. William I of England ( 1027 His reign which brought Norman culture to England had an enormous impact on the subsequent course of England in the Middle Ages The Normans were the people who gave their names to Normandy, a region in northern France. Roman law is the legal system of Ancient Rome. As used in the West the term commonly refers to legal developments prior to the Roman/Byzantine state's adopting

According to George Macaulay Trevelyan in A Shortened History of England, during the Viking occupation: “The Scandinavians, when not on the Viking warpath, were a litigious people and loved to get together in the ‘thing’ to hear legal argument. George Macaulay Trevelyan CBE OM ( February 16, 1876 Welcombe House, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire A Viking is one of the Norse ( Scandinavian Explorers Warriors Merchants, and pirates who raided and colonized wide areas They had no professional lawyers, but many of their farmer-warriors, like Njal, the truth-teller, were learned in folk custom and in its intricate judicial procedure. A Danish town in England often had, as it principal officers, twelve hereditary ‘law men. ’ The Danes introduced the habit of making committees among the free men in court, which perhaps made England favorable ground for the future growth of the jury system out of a Frankish custom later introduced by the Normans. ” 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. Ethelred II ( c. 968 – 23 April 1016 also known as Æthelred II, Aethelred II, Ethelred the Unready, Æthelred the Unready A thegn or thane was an attendant servant retainer or official in Early Medieval Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon culture. 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]

The most likely precursor to the English jury trial, however, was the hoe-bag in the Maliki school of classical Islamic law and jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in the medieval Islamic world and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. A jury a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial Verdict (a finding of fact on a question officially submitted to them The Maliki Madhhab ( Arabic مالكي) is one of the four schools of Fiqh or religious law within Sunni Islam Sharia ( Arabic: ar شريعة) is the body of Islamic Religious law. Fiqh ( Arabic: فقه, fɪqəh is Islamic Jurisprudence. Fiqh is an expansion of the Sharia Islamic law—based directly on the Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff. Qadi (also known as Qazi or Kazi or Kadi) (قاضي is a judge ruling in accordance with the Sharia, Islamic religious law A plaintiff ( Π in Legal shorthand) also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a Lawsuit " The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition. In Law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial Jurisdiction. Bailiff (from Late Latin baiulivus, Adjectival form of baiulus) is a Governor or Custodian (cf " According to John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury. " It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans after their conquest of England and the Emirate of Sicily, and then evolved into the modern English jury. England is a Country which is part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total UK population whilst its mainland The Normans were the people who gave their names to Normandy, a region in northern France. The Emirate of Sicily was an Islamic state on the island of Sicily from 965 to 1072. ^[1]

In the 12th century, 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. In the Common law, a grand jury is a type of Jury which determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. The Assize of Clarendon was an 1166 act of Henry II of England that began the transformation of English law from such systems for deciding the prevailing 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 a pretty explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Magna Carta ( Latin for Great Charter, literally " Great Paper " also called Magna Carta Libertatum ( Great Charter of Freedoms John (24 December 1167 &ndash 19 October 1216 reigned as a King of England from 6 April 1199 until his death Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:

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, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land. " Although it says and or by the law of the land, this in no manner can be interpreted as if it were enough to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen. The law of the land was the consuetudinary law, based on the customs and consent of John’s subjects, and since they did not have Parliament in those times, this meant that neither the king nor the barons could make a law without the consent of the people. According to some sources, in the time of Edward III, by the law of the land had been substituted by due process of law, which in those times was a trial by twelve peers.

During the mid-14th Century, it was forbidden that persons who had sat on the Presenting Jury (i. e. , in modern parlance, the Grand Jury) to sit on the trial jury for that crime. In the Common law, a grand jury is a type of Jury which determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. 25 Edward III stat 5. , c3 (1353). 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. The Magna Carta being forgotten after a succession of benevolent reigns (or, more probably, reigns limited by the jury and the barons, and only under the rule of laws that the juries and barons found acceptable), the kings, through the royal judges, began to extend their control over the jury and the kingdom. In David Hume's History of England, he tells something of the powers that the kings had accumulated in the times after the Magna Carta, the prerogatives of the crown and the sources of great power with which these monarchs counted:

One of the most ancient and most established instruments of power was the court of Star Chamber, which possessed an unlimited discretionary authority of fining, imprisoning, and inflicting corporal punishment, and whose jurisdiction extended to all sorts of offenses, contempts, and disorders, that lay not within reach of the common law. For the online trading card game see Star Chamber The Harbinger Saga. The members of this court consisted of the privy council and the judges; men who all of them enjoyed their offices during pleasure: And when the prince himself was present, he was the sole judge, and all the others could only interpose with their advice. There needed but this one court in any government, to put an end to all regular, legal, and exact plans of liberty. For who durst set himself in opposition to the crown and ministry, or aspire to the character of being a patron of freedom, while exposed to so arbitrary a jurisdiction? I much question, whether any of the absolute monarchies in Europe contain, at present, so illegal and despotic a tribunal. While so many terrors hung over the people, no jury durst have acquitted a man, when the court was resolved to have him condemned. The practice also, of not confronting witnesses to the prisoner, gave the crown lawyers all imaginable advantage against him. And, indeed, there scarcely occurs an instance, during all these reigns, that the sovereign, or the ministers, were ever disappointed in the issue of a prosecution. Timid juries, and judges who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to second all the views of the crown. And as the practice was anciently common of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the direction of these dependent judges; it is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject.

The first paragraph of the Act that abolished the Star Chamber repeats the clause on the right of a citizen to be judged by his peers: Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641 An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.

WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land…

Many English colonies adopted the jury trial system including the United States. The United States of America —commonly referred to as the Jury trials in criminal cases were a protected right in the original Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the U. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme Law of the United States. The Fifth Amendment ( Amendment V) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts 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.

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. Law is a system of rules enforced through a set of Institutions used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience politics economics and society Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that Jurors should follow when the Jury is deciding a civil or criminal case Typically, the jury only judges guilt or a verdict of not guilty, but the actual penalty is set by the judge. An interesting innovation was introduced in Russia in the judicial reform of Alexander II: unlike in modern jury trials, jurors decided not only whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, but they had the third choice: "Guilty, but not to be punished", since Alexander II believed that justice without morality is wrong. Russia (Россия Rossiya) or the Russian Federation ( Rossiyskaya Federatsiya) is a transcontinental Country extending The judicial reform of Alexander II is generally considered one of the most successful and the most consistent (along with the military reform of all the reforms of Alexander Alexander (Aleksandr II Nikolaevich (Александр II Николаевич ( Moscow, 29 April 1818 – 13 March 1881 in St JUSTICE is a Human rights and law reform organisation based in the United Kingdom. Morality (from the Latin la moralitas "manner character proper behavior" has three principal meanings
• In France and some countries organized in the same fashion, the jury and several professional judges sit together to determine guilt first. This article is about the country For a topic outline on this subject see List of basic France topics. 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. A bench trial in US law is a trial before a Judge alone in which the right to a Jury trial has been waived by the necessary parties (or there 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. |utc_offset = -2 to -4 |time_zone_DST = BRST |utc_offset_DST = -2 to -5 |cctld 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 (defamation, malicious prosecution, civil fraud and false imprisonment). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain,is a Sovereign state located Malicious prosecution is a Common law intentional Tort, while like the tort of Abuse of process, its elements include (1 intentionally (and In the broadest sense a fraud is a Deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual False imprisonment is a Tort, and possibly a Crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority In the United States, jury trials are available in both civil and criminal cases. The United States of America —commonly referred to as the 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. Country to "Dominion of Canada" or "Canadian Federation" or anything else please read the Talk Page However, the right to a jury trial may be waived if both the prosecution and defense agree.

In the United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials. Frequency is a measure of the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit Time. Approximately 150,000 jury trials are conducted in state courts in the U. S. , and an additional 5,000 jury trials are conducted in federal courts. Two-thirds of jury trials are criminal trials, one-third are civil and "other" (e. g. , family,, municipal ordinance, traffic). Nevertheless, the vast majority of cases are in fact settled by plea bargain which removes the need for a jury trial. A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a Criminal case whereby the Prosecutor offers

Pros and cons

In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. Separation of powers, a term ascribed to French Enlightenment Political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, is a model for the Governance Other common assertions about the benefits of trial by jury is that it provides a means of interjecting community norms and values into judicial proceedings and that it legitimizes the law by providing opportunities for citizens to validate criminal statutes in their application to specific trials. Alexis de Tocqueville also claimed that jury trials educate citizens about self-government. 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. The French Minister of Justice ( Ministre de la Justice) is an important cabinet member in the Government of France. Robert Badinter (born 30 March 1928 is a high-profile French criminal Lawyer, University Professor and Politician

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. Rodney Glen King April 9, 1965 in Fort Worth Texas) --> (born April 2, 1965 California ( is a US state on the West Coast of the United States, along the Pacific Ocean. This led to widespread questioning about the case and riots ensued. The Los Angeles riots of 1992, also known as the Rodney King uprising or the Rodney King riots, were sparked on April 29, 1992 when a jury

The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the U. S. 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. For a topic outline on this subject see List of basic Japan topics. 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. Similarly, jury trials were abolished by the government of India in 1960 on the grounds they would be susceptible to media and public influence. India, officially the Republic of India (भारत गणराज्य inc-Latn Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages) is a country

One issue that has been raised is the ability of a jury to fully understand statistical or scientific evidence. It has been said that the expectation of jury members as to the explanatory power of scientific evidence has been raised by television in what is known as the CSI effect. The " CSI Effect " (sometimes referred to as the " CSI syndrome " is a reference to the phenomenon of popular television shows such as the ''CSI'' franchise In at least one English trial the misuse or misunderstanding of statistics has led to wrongful conviction[2].

Recently, in Britain, Lord Goldsmith, the government's Attorney General, has been actively pressing forward^[2] with the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill in Parliament, which seeks to abolish jury trials in major criminal fraud trials. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain,is a Sovereign state located Peter Henry Goldsmith Baron Goldsmith, PC, QC (born 5 January 1950) is a former Attorney General of England and Wales. Her Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales, usually known simply as the Attorney General, is the chief legal adviser of the Crown in England and Wales The Bill was subject to sharp criticism from both sides of the House of Commons,^[3] , but passed its second Commons reading in November 2006^[4]. The House of Commons' is the Lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which also comprises the Sovereign and the House of Lords The Bill follows the Government's earlier, unsuccessful attempt to pass measures allowing trials without jury in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003 c44 is a wide ranging Act of Parliament introduced to modernise many areas of the Criminal justice system in England

Australia

The first trial by jury in the colony of New South Wales was held in April 1841 in the town of Berrima. Dharawal Aborigines They

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. Voir dire (IPA /vwɑr dir/ is a phrase in Law which derives from Anglo-Norman. Therefore, though it exists, the right to challenge for cause during jury selection cannot be made much use of. Jury selection refers to several methods used to choose the people who will serve on a trial jury. Peremptory challenges are usually based on the hunches of the counsels and no reason is needed to use them. Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in Jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable 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. A jury a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial Verdict (a finding of fact on a question officially submitted to them Until 1987 New South Wales had twenty peremptory challenges for each side where the offence was murder, and eight for all other cases. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with Malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries In 1987 this was lowered to three peremptory challenges per side, the same amount allowed in South Australia. South Australia is a state of Australia in the southern central part of the country Eight peremptory challenges are allowed for both counsels for all offences in Queensland. Queensland is a state of Australia, occupying the north-eastern corner of the mainland continent Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow for six. Tasmania is an Australian island and state of the same name It is located south of the eastern side of the Continent, being separated from it by Bass The Northern Territory is a federal territory of Australia, occupying much of the center of the mainland continent as well as the central northern regions Western Australia allows five peremptory challenges per side, according to section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA). Western Australia is a state occupying the entire western third of the Australian continent.

Majority and unanimous verdicts in criminal trials

See also: Hung jury

In Australia majority verdicts are allowed in South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory andNew South Wales, while Queensland and the ACT require unanimous verdicts. A hung jury is a Jury that cannot agree upon a Verdict after an extended period of Deliberation and is deadlocked with irreconcilable differences of A majority, also known as a simple majority in the US, is a Subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group South Australia is a state of Australia in the southern central part of the country Western Australia is a state occupying the entire western third of the Australian continent. Tasmania is an Australian island and state of the same name It is located south of the eastern side of the Continent, being separated from it by Bass The Northern Territory is a federal territory of Australia, occupying much of the center of the mainland continent as well as the central northern regions Queensland is a state of Australia, occupying the north-eastern corner of the mainland continent } The Australian Capital Territory (ACT is the Capital territory of the Commonwealth of Australia and its smallest self-governing internal territory 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 for "guilty" verdicts where the defendant is on trial for murder or treason. In Criminal law, guilt is entirely externally defined by the State, or more generally a “court of law Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with Malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries In Law, treason is the Crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or Nation. Victoria has accepted majority verdicts 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. In Criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict 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. Majority verdicts were introducted in New South Wales in 2005 (see Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 55F).

Austria

Austria, in common with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains elements of trial by jury in serious criminal cases.

Belgium

In Belgium one can only have a jury trial when the crime is grave enough. The only court that tries by jury is het hof van assissen, which tries violent crimes.

Canada

See also: Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms#Right to trial by jury

Germany

Jury trials were abolished in Germany by the government on January 4, 1924, because their verdicts were not perceived as just anymore. Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution 's Charter of Rights that protects a person's legal rights Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany ( ˈbʊndəsʁepuˌbliːk ˈdɔʏtʃlant is a Country in Central Europe. JUSTICE is a Human rights and law reform organisation based in the United Kingdom. Juries tended to be mistaken because of the increasing complexity of trials. Also they started to lead into an unjustified acquittal in more and more cases. ^[5]. The German legal system however provides for laymen to sit in court as judges alongside professional judges. This type of laymen is then called a "Schöffe" ^[6]. Such courts always consist of three or more judges. The laymen have exactly the same rights and obligations as the professional judges.

Greece

The country which gave birth to the concept of the jury trial retains it in an unusual form. Serious crimes in this country are tried by a panel of three professional judges and four lay jurors who decide the facts and appropriate penalty if convicted.

Gibraltar

Being a Common Law jurisdiction, Gibraltar retains jury trial in a similar manner to that found in England and Wales, the exception being that juries consist of nine lay people, rather than twelve.

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. Background Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati (1935&ndash2003 a Parsi and a Commander with the Indian Navy, had settled down in Mumbai

New Zealand

In 2004 New Zealand Parliament first heard the Criminal Procedures bill which would allow majority verdicts of 11:1. At its second reading in 2006, both major parties supported this element of the bill. ^[7]

Russia

Firstly, jury trials were introduced in the Russian Empire as a result of the Judicial reform of Alexander II in 1864. The Russian Empire ( Pre-reform Russian: Pоссійская Имперія Modern Russian: Российская Империя translit: Rossiyskaya The judicial reform of Alexander II is generally considered one of the most successful and the most consistent (along with the military reform of all the reforms of Alexander After the October Revolution they were abolished and introduced again in the Russian Federation for certain crimes in 1993. The October Revolution (Октябрьская революция Oktyabrskaya revolyutsiya) also known as the Soviet Revolution Russia (Россия Rossiya) or the Russian Federation ( Rossiyskaya Federatsiya) is a transcontinental Country extending The Federal Constitution of that year also stipulates that, until the abolition of the death penalty, all defendants in a case that may result in a death sentence are entitled to a jury trial. For the constitution of the Imperial Russia see Russian Constitution of 1906 The current Constitution of the Russian Federation [3]

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 U. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain,is a Sovereign state located S. voir dire system, jurors are usually just accepted without question. Voir dire (IPA /vwɑr dir/ is a phrase in Law which derives from Anglo-Norman. 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.

England and Wales

Main article: Jury (England and Wales)

In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), minor criminal cases are heard without a jury in the Magistrates' Courts. In the legal Jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of Jury trial that has evolved over centuries England is a Country which is part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total UK population whilst its mainland A magistrate is a judicial officer In Common law systems a magistrate usually has limited authority to administer and enforce the Law. Middle ranking ("triable either way") offences may be tried by magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. Serious ("indictable") offenses however must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court. Juries sit in a few civil cases, in particular, defamation and cases involving the state. Juries also sit in coroners courts for more contentious inquests. A coroner is an official responsible for investigating deaths particularly some of those happening under unusual circumstances and determining the cause of death 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 to prevent jury tampering in cases involving organized crime.

Scotland

In Scotland juries consist of 15 people for criminal trials and 12 people for civil trials. Scotland ( Gaelic: Alba) is a Country in northwest Europethat occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. 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 verdict of not proven. Not proven is a Verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts 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.

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". Northern Ireland (Tuaisceart Éireann Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a Country within the United Kingdom, lying in the northeast of Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion The Diplock courts were a type of court established by the British Government in Northern Ireland in 1972 in an attempt to overcome widespread Jury intimidation 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.

United States

In the United States every person accused of a felony has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises from Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes. Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the Judicial branch of the federal government. . . shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed. " The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which 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. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings Public trial or open trial is a trial open to public as opposed to the Secret trial. " Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment ( Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post- Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first 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. Also, a person accused of any crime punishable by more than six months imprisonment is also entitled to demand trial by jury; the Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases.

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. Apprendi v New Jersey,, was a United States Supreme Court decision Blakely v Washington, 542 US 296 ( 2004) held that in the context of mandatory state sentencing guidelines the Sixth Amendment right to The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary. 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. The United States district courts are the general Trial courts of the United States federal court system.

Jurors in some states 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.

Civil trial procedure

Note: in the United States "Civil" denotes non-criminal actions and should not be confused with Civil law jurisdictions. In law a lawsuit is a civil action brought before a Court in which the party commencing the action the Plaintiff, seeks a legal or equitable remedy Civil law or Romano-Germanic law or Continental law is the predominant system of law in the world.

The right to trial by jury in a civil case is addressed 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. " [4] 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. Joseph Story ( September 18, 1779 &ndash September 10, 1845) was an American Lawyer and Jurist who served on "

The 7th Amendment does not guarantee or create any right to a jury trial, it preserves the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law. In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England at the time. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity. Equity is the name given to the set of legal principles in jurisdictions following the English common law tradition which supplement strict rules of law where Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action - the civil action[,]" which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP are rules governing Civil procedure in United States district (federal courts that is court procedures for Civil Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury; in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c) allows a court to use one at its discretion. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP are rules governing Civil procedure in United States district (federal courts that is court procedures for Civil To determine whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791, you first look at the type of action and whether such an action was considered "legal" or "equitable" in 1791. Next, you look at the relief being sought. Monetary damages alone were purely a legal remedy, and thus entitled to a jury. Non-monetary remedies such as injunctions, rescission, and specific performance were all equitable remedies, and thus up to the judge's discretion, not a jury. An injunction is an Equitable remedy in the form of a Court order, whereby a party is required to do or interact with in certain ways all right or to refrain from In contract law rescission (to rescind or set aside a contract has been defined as the unmaking of a contract between the parties In the law of Remedy, an order of specific performance is an order of the court which requires a party to perform a specific act usually what is stated in a contract In law equitable remedies are the remedies developed and granted by the old courts of equity, such as the Court of Chancery in England and still available today In Beacon Theaters v. Westover, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the right to a jury, holding that when both equitable and legal claims are brought, the right to a jury trial still exists for the legal claim, which would be decided by a jury before the judge ruled on the equitable claim. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary.

The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part. [5]

Following the English tradition, U. S. juries have usually been composed of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict has usually been 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.

Waiver of jury trial

The vast majority of U. S. criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by plea bargain. The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a Criminal case whereby the Prosecutor offers Both prosecutors and defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by negotiation resulting in a plea bargain. The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries with either the Common law Adversarial system, or the civil law A defendant or defender ( Δ in Legal shorthand) is any party who is required to answer the Complaint of a Plaintiff For Wikipedia's negotiation policy see WikipediaNegotiation. For other uses see Negotiation (disambiguation. If the defendant waives a jury trial, a bench trial is held. A bench trial in US law is a trial before a Judge alone in which the right to a Jury trial has been waived by the necessary parties (or there

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.

See also

• Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Take it to the Box
• Sparf v. United States

References

• Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History from Socrates to O. J. Simpson, HarperCollins 2005. ISBN 0-00-711121-5
• Brill, Steven. Trial by Jury. (New York: American Lawyer Books/TOUCHSTONE, 1989).
• Lehman, Godfrey D. We the jury… (New York: Prometheus Books, 1997).

History of the jury

• Journal Article
• American Bar Association's History of the Jury
• Watergate trial sketches, with jurors
• Aristotle's "Athenian Constitution"

© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic