Chapter 10: Jury System Sac Study Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is the role of the jury in a criminal case? (4)
- make a decision based on the facts whether or not the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
- listen to the evidence
- Apply the law
- Not lose concentration
What is the role of the jury in a civil case? (2)
- weigh up the evidence on both sides and decide whether the defendant is liable or not liable on the balance of probabilities
- decide amount of damages if the plaintiff is successful
When is a jury used in a civil or criminal case?
criminal - in the county and sup court when the accused pleads not guilty (12 or can increase to 15 in lengthy case)
civil - when the party requests one, this party will also bare the cost (6 or can increase to 8 for lengthy case)
when is a majority verdict accepted in civil and criminal cases?
criminal - if unanimous verdict not possible after 6hrs deliberation a majority verdict (11 out of 12) can be accepted in most cases (not cases like murder)
civil - decision can be majority (5 out of 6) if unanimous decision can’t be reached after 3hrs deliberation
what factors influence the composition of a jury? (4)
who is: - ineligible - disqualified - excused - challenged (randomly selected from electoral role)
what are the 4 steps of the empanelment process?
- summoned by the court on a set date: to form the jury pool (disqualified, excused)
- jurors are drawn from a ballot: to enter the court
- some people are challenged
- once required number of jurors remains unchallenged they form the jury and are sworn in
what is the the role of the foreperson?
- elected as the juries spokesperson
- takes control of deliberations and makes sure everyone has a say
- asks the judge questions and delivers the verdict
what are 2 kinds of jury documents?
- the indictment
- any statement of facts
What are 2 reforms that have happened?
- jurors not allowed to make their own enquiries
- simplifying jury directions (The Jury Directions Act 2015)
What is the reform that has happened; ‘jurors not allowed to make their own enquiries’? 2
- It’s unlawful, through introduction of new Act, for jurors to make their own inquires, including conducting research or inspecting relevant places
- this leads to a more fair and unbiased hearing, as all it means all jurors should make their decision based on the evidence and facts presented to them in court
What is the reform that has happened; ‘simplifying jury directions’? 3
- Jury Directions Act 2015 establishes new structure for jury directions and provides guidelines for judges when summing up so its more easily understood
- ensures parties feel free to ask q’s rather then conduct their own research
- allows for more fair and unbiased hearing and more timely resolution
what are 2 possible reforms to trial by jury?
- require juries to give reasons for their decision (good to evaluate)
- make juries more representative by reducing challenges and exemptions
what are the strengths of requiring juries to give reasons for their decisions? (possible reform) 3
strengths:
- accused would know why guilty, civil would know why juries decided the way they did
- Should ensure they are deciding on the facts, which is their role
- parties would know whether due attention had been given to points of law
what are the weaknesses of requiring juries to give reasons for their decisions? (possible reform) 3
- juries would have to make decision that strictly followed the law rather then being free to make decision in line with community thinking
- could result in more appeals because reasons may seem unreasonable
- would slow down timely resolution as jurors have to come up with 1 clear reason
what are the strengths of reducing challenges and exemptions? 3
- peremptory challenges could be further reduced to 3 instead of 6 to allow for more mixture of people, rather than people chosen by parties to favour their client
- would make jurors more rep of the community
- would condtribute to timely resolution and fair and unbiased hearing
what is one weakness of reducing challenges and exemptions?
under our adversarial system of party control, the parties like to have some say in the make-up of the jury (feel they’ve had some input into outcome, more satisfied with decision)
What are 2 possible alternatives to trial by jury?
- a judge alone or panel of three judges
- specialist jurors
what are the strengths of having a judge alone or a panel of three judges? and when would it be used? (possible alternatives to trial by jury)
- would be used in civil case in sup or county when party requests it or in crim case being heard in sup or county when accused pleads ‘not guilty’
- could make decisions based on the law with a thorough understanding of legal procedures and processes (more confidence in that the law is being applied)
- the decision is more likely to be right, could reduce appeals
what are 3 weaknesses of having a judge alone or a panel of three judges? (possible alternatives to trial by jury)
- decision based on law alone may not take into account feelings/attitudes of ordinary people
- judge may have formed biases against certain types of people or cases
- judges employed by the crown and may have bias, so parties may be more confident with decision made by their peers
what are 2 strengths of having specialist jurors? (possible alternatives to trial by jury)
- would consist of people employed full time and have specialist knowledge in their area of expertise, eg medical experts involving complex medical evidence
- they would better be able to understand the complicated evidence
what are 3 weaknesses of having specialist jurors? (possible alternatives to trial by jury)
- wouldn’t have attitudes of ordinary people; may have biases against people in same profession who has allegedly done something wrong
- expensive to pay them
- evidence would need to be explained in simplistic way so it’s understandable for the accused and community as a whole
what are 2 aspects that enhance timely resolution of disputes?
majority verdicts - introduced in criminal cases if unanimous verdict cant be reached after 6hrs. Speeds up process of not reaching a verdict and more likely that verdict will be reached
extra jurors - civil can have 2 extra, criminal can have 3 extra. Prevents mistrials, which could occur if the number falls below 10 in criminal cases. Saves time because re-trials add to time it takes to reach outcome
what are 2 aspects that hinder timely resolution of disputes?
empanelment process - can take hours or even days for longer trials
jury deliberations - can take a lot of time especially in complex cases, hung jury means a re-trial needs to take place (increased time as whole new trial)
what is one recent change for timely resolution of disputes?
simplifying judges directions to juries - should overcome problem of long and complex judges directions and help juries reach decision quicker. Also reduce need for retrial due to trial judge misdirecting jury
