Jury Trial

A jury trial (or 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. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all decisions. The Philippines is one such country which adopts a bench trial in court proceedings.

A jury is a sworn body of people (usually numbering 12) convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to judge whether an accused person is not guilty or guilty of a crime. (There is no such verdict as 'innocent'). A person who is serving on a jury is a juror.

*****

Rebellious English barons forced the despotic and cash-strapped King John to approve the Magna Carta in 1215 at Runnymede, southwest of London, near where Windsor castle stands today. One of its articles says that no freeman shall be imprisoned, deprived of property, exiled, or destroyed, except by the lawful judgment of his peers (equals) or by the law of the land. The idea of due process of law, including trial by jury, is said to have developed from this.

*****

English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury. In the United States every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury. Juries usually weigh the evidence and testimony to determine questions of fact, while judges usually rule on questions of law.

*****

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. 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.

*****

There has been much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the jury system, the competence or lack thereof of jurors as fact-finders, and the uniformity or capriciousness of the justice they administer. The jury has been described as "an exciting and gallant experiment in the conduct of serious human affairs." As fact-finders, juries are expected to fulfill the role of lie detector. In countries where jury trials are common, juries are often seen as an important check against state power. 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. It has also been 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. Of course, one strong argument in favor of the jury system is that it is harder to dupe 12 jurors to believe a lie, than 1 judge.

*****

On the other hand, one 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. This led to widespread questioning about the case and riots ensued. Another objection against jury trials is that it is discomforting to put the liberty and future of an accused in the hands of 12 men who might have had no training at all in the appreciation of evidence.

Posted in: Legal Law