Trial jury is smaller in size compared to the grand jury, trial jury usually consists of 6-12 people. Trial jury, which is usually the type of jury we see televised, is usually open to the public, very strict, and controlled by a judge. Defendants usually are allowed to be present, as well as testify, and call witnesses if they choose to do so. A trial usually has no say so regarding the trial they are working on, usually the only thing they are allowed to do, is deliberate and come up with a final decision, also known as the verdict. The trial jury rules either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged, according to Doug Linder. The jury will nullify a law because it believes that it wrongly applies to the particular defendant. Is this right or wrong? Should a jury have the right to override the law? Juries have the power to nullify a law, but do they have the right to?
I think that I would like to be on a jury and experience what is required of a juror, I think everyone should be a member of the jury at least once in their lifetime. Having to experience the juries’ duties on a civil or criminal case, in some instance would be hard. Especially in a murder case involving children or battered women. When the judge gives you direction to please disregard that statement. How can you disregard information that you have heard?
The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.
In most of the English colonies including the United States, adopted the English common law system, one of these laws is “been trial by a jury” which include the number of members, they play an important role on every trial as they do now. The first one to implement the ”juries” was the king of England Ethelred who has been credited with the formation of local investigations that include twelve members. The King made many provisions to the code of law including a letter with a law code named “Tantage” in 997 this letter is considered to be the beginning of jury’s formation, on this he stated: “That there shall bean assemble in every meting place and in that assembly shall go forth the twelve eldest thegns and the reeve along with them, and
Is the American Jury System still a Good Idea? In the American Judicial System today, there is a choice between trial by jury or bench trial. Trial by jury is used today by selecting jurors from pools of people who are eligible, adult American citizens. Trial by jury is often controversial because of how the jurors are not professionals whereas in a bench trial, a judge is highly educated in law (Doc B).
a reasonable doubt. After the closing arguments from both the prosecution and defense attorney, the jury will deliberate. Jury deliberation takes place in seclusion, and jury instructions from the judge will be made clear, any evidence will be reviewed, testimony and witness credibility will be taken into consideration, as well as the charges. Subsequently, the jury will reach a verdict and the judge, defendants, prosecution attorney, defense attorney, and accused will reconvene in the courtroom for the verdict to be read aloud by the jury foreman (Gaines and Miller, 2011, p.189). Once the verdict has been read, the trial process has concluded.
As a U.S. citizen there are pretty much only three things you should be doing, that is paying taxes, voting, and serving on a jury. Skipping over the first two brings us to jury duty, which many feel to be a nuisance, but really, is it? Our right to a jury trial is one of the foundations our country was built on. Just because you don’t have a choice when it comes to jury duty, doesn’t mean it’s something that you should feel negative toward. Yes, that piece of mail we receive “summons” us to report to jury duty, but don’t think it that way.
“Hear ye! Hear ye! All rise for the Court is now open and in session.” These are the words I heard before walking into the Michigan Supreme Court as a Justice. My black judge’s robe billowed gallantly behind me as I walked down the center aisle of the court room along with my other fellow justices to the bench.
All people need to be good citizens so that there can be peace in our societies. Notably, jury duty is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that justice prevails in the entire community. Therefore, students should not avoid jury duty as it will show some character of a bad citizenship. Avoiding jury duty is not ethical and it should be discouraged by all means. It should be in everyone’s interest to get justice for every member in the society.
Every American citizen should serve on a jury because it allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 11 says, “I have always thought a man was entitled to have unpopular opinion in this country. This is the reason why I came here. I wanted the right to disagree” (28). To allow all American citizens to serve on a jury, it would allow different views and ideas from other countries to be heard.
Jury nullification is a finding by a trial jury in contradiction to the jury's belief about the facts of the case, which occurs during a trial when jurors acquit a defendant, even though the jurors may believe the defendant to be guilty of the charges. (Legal IQ, 2017) Jurors have an obligation to follow the law, as interpreted by the trial judge when rendering a verdict; therefore, judges instruct jurors in this obligation. (Hall, 2014) However, “a defendant has no right to insist that a jury is instructed that it has the authority to nullify the law” (Hall, 2014, p. 577).
"Ending the war earlier saved possibly millions of lives, both Japanese and American. "(Jake, closing statement) This compelling statement convinced me that the bombing of Hiroshima was an act that flowed logically from history, and we cannot in retrospect claim to know what the Japanese would or would not have done. However, I think that had I been there, knowing what I know now through compelling evidence from the defense team, I would have been trapped in a logic that ultimately justified itself: Japan surrendered, and Asia was saved from a greater evil. This was the major reason provided for seeking a 'quick end' to the war through the use of the atomic bomb.