What kind of cases require jurors

Jury - jury

This article is about the body of certain people. For the term referring to "Coroner Jury" see Investigation. For other uses, see Jury (disambiguation).
"Jury Box" forwards here. For the parlor game of the 1930s, see Jury Box (game).
"Juror" forwards here. For the 1995 film, see The Juror.
Group of people to pass judgment in court

A jury is a sworn group of persons (the Jurors ) convened to deliver an impartial judgment (a finding of fact on an issue) formally presented to them by a court or to impose a penalty or judgment. Juries developed in England in the Middle Ages and are a hallmark of the Anglo common law legal system. They are still widely used today in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and other countries whose legal systems are derived from England's legal traditions.

Most trial juries are "petit juries" and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as the grand jury was set up to investigate possible crimes and bring charges against suspects. However, all common law countries with the exception of the USA and Liberia have discontinued this. The modern arrangement of the criminal court jury evolved from the medieval juries in England. Members should find out about crimes and then the details of the crimes. Their function was therefore closer to that of a large jury than that of a jury in a process.


The word jury is derived from Anglo-Norman Juré ("sworn in"). Juries are most common in opposing common law jurisdictions. In the modern system, juries function as the trier of facts, while judges act as the trier of the law (but see the repeal). A process without a jury (in which both factual and legal issues are decided by a judge) is known as a banking process.

Types of jury

Small jury

The "Petit Jury" (or "Trial Jury", sometimes "Petty Jury") hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (defendant). After hearing the evidence and often the instructions of the jury by the judge, the group withdraws for deliberation to consider a judgment. The majority required for a judgment varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it can be a majority or super-majority. A jury that cannot come to a judgment is called a hanging jury. The size of the jury varies; In criminal cases involving serious crimes, there are usually 12 jurors.

In civil cases, many trials require fewer than twelve jurors.

Big jury

A grand jury, a type of jury that's now almost entirely limited to federal courts and some state jurisdictions in the U.S., decides whether there's enough evidence of a criminal case to proceed. Large juries do this by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and bringing charges, or by investigating suspected crimes and making presentations. A grand jury is traditionally larger and differs from the petit jury, which is used during a process, usually with 12 judges. It is not necessary that a suspect be informed of the grand jury procedure. Large juries can also be used to file charges in the form of a sealed indictment against unsuspecting suspects who are later arrested by a surprise police visit.

In addition to their primary role in law enforcement review and crime investigation assistance, large juries are sometimes used in California, Florida, and several other US states to perform an investigative and policy review function similar to that of the Government Accountability Office in the United States United States Federal government and state legislative auditors in many US states.

Coroner jury

A third type of jury, known as the jury coroner, may have jurisdiction in a common law jurisdiction in connection with an investigation convened by an examining magistrate. A coroner is a civil servant (often an elected local government official in the United States) charged with determining the circumstances that result in death in ambiguous or suspicious cases. A medical examiner's jury is generally an entity that a medical examiner may optionally convene to increase public confidence in the medical examiner's finding when controversy might otherwise arise. In practice, most of the time coroners are convened to avoid the appearance of inappropriateness of one government official in the criminal justice system to another when no indictment is brought against the person causing the death, when a ruling party such as a law enforcement officer is involved in the death.


Membership in a jury is usually mandatory for individuals who are qualified for the jury service. A jury should be an impartial body that is able to pass judgment. Procedures and requirements may include a fluent understanding of the language and the ability to test judges' neutrality or otherwise exclude judges who are classified as less neutral or partially unilateral. The juries are initially selected at random, usually from the eligible population of adult citizens residing in the jurisdiction of the court. The selection of the jury in the United States usually involves the organized questioning of the potential jurors (jury pool) by the lawyers of the plaintiff and the accused, as well as by the judge - voir dire - as well as the rejection of some jurors due to bias or inability to to serve properly ("Challenge to the Cause") and deny the right to vote on each side of a certain number of jurors without having to demonstrate a proper cause for denial ("Categorical Challenge") before the jury impaneled.

A senior judge is referred to as a "foreman", "foreman" or "presiding judge". The front person can be selected before the start of the procedure or at the start of the jury's deliberations. The front person can be selected by the judge or by a vote of the jurors, depending on the jurisdiction. The predecessor's role may include asking questions (usually to the judge) on behalf of the jury, facilitating jury discussions, and delivering the jury's verdict.

Since there is always the possibility that jurors may not complete a process for health or other reasons, one or more alternative jurors are often selected. Substitutes are present throughout the process, but they do not participate in deliberating the case and deciding on the verdict unless one or more of the impaled jurors are removed from the jury. In Connecticut, alternate jurors are fired before the sworn jurors jury begins deliberating. Connecticut General Statutes 51–243 (e) and 54-82h do not allow alternate jurors to be separated from the regular sworn jurors. In Connecticut civil cases, CGS 51–243 (e) provides that alternate jurors be "fired". This differs from the power conferred on the court in criminal proceedings under CGS 54-82h and allows the court not to dismiss the alternate juror and allow the regular jury to begin deliberations.

In many jurisdictions, when not enough summoned jury members appear in court to consider a matter, the law involuntarily authorizes the jury commissioner or other officer calling the jury to stop bystanders in the vicinity of the location where the jury is to be called to impress the jury.

Historical roots

The jury , a painting by a British jury from 1861

The modern jury evolved from the ancient custom of many ancient Germanic tribes which employed a group of men of good character to investigate crimes and judge the accused. The same custom developed into the Vehmic court system in medieval Germany. Juries investigated crimes in Anglo-Saxon England. After the Norman Conquest, some parts of the land were given juries as a means of investigating crimes. The use of ordinary members of the community to contemplate crime was uncommon in ancient cultures but was also found in ancient Greece.

The modern judicial process developed in the middle of the 12th century during the reign of Henry II. From this custom. Juries, usually 6 or 12 men, were an "old institution" even then in some parts of England, while the members consisted of representatives from the basic units of the local government - Hundreds (an administrative subdivision of the Shire). Hug of several villages) and villages. These men, known as presentation juries, testified under oath that they had committed crimes in their neighborhood. The Assize of Clarendon in 1166 resulted in these juries being systematically passed across the country. The jury at the time was "self-informative," which meant they heard very little evidence or testimony in court. Instead, jurors were recruited from the scene of the dispute and were expected to know the facts before going to court. The source of judges' knowledge could be firsthand knowledge, research, and less reliable sources such as rumors and hearsay.

Between 1166 and 1179, new procedures, including a division of functions between the sheriff, the jury of local men, and the royal judges, ushered in the era of English common law. Sheriffs prepared cases for trial and found jurors with relevant knowledge and credentials. The judges "found" judgment by giving testimony and even evaluating and applying information from their own and community memories - little was written at this point and what was, like deeds and writings, was subject to fraud. The royal judges oversaw the trial, answered questions about the law, and announced the court's decision, which was open to appeal. Sheriffs carried out the court's decision. These procedures allowed Henry II to delegate authority without giving too much power to his subordinates. ("Henry II" 293)

In 1215, the Catholic Church lifted its sanction from all forms of torture - procedures that had been used to check suspects for guilt up to that point (e.g., the torture of hot metal sometimes entailed molten metal in the hands of a suspected thief poured If the wound healed quickly and well, it was believed that God found the suspect innocent, and if not, the suspect was found guilty. If the trial were forbidden, finding guilt would have been problematic if England were not over forty Years of experience in the judiciary. By then, the judges were used to asking the presentation jury the facts in judging charges. It was a short step to asking the jury if they had concluded that the defendant was guilty as a defendant ("Henry II" 358)

An early reference to a jury-type group in England is contained in a decree by Aethelred in Wantage (997) which provided that in every hundred "the twelve leading thegns should go out with the Reeve and swear on the relics that put their hands in them that they will not blame an innocent man or protect a guilty one. "The resulting Wantage Code officially recognized the legal practice that was part of the Danelaw.

The concept of testimony can also be traced back to Normandy before 1066, when a noble jury was used to decide land disputes. In this way, as the largest landowner, the Duke could not act as a judge in his case.

One of the earliest forerunners of modern jury systems is the jury in ancient Greece, including the city-state of Athens, where jury records date back to 500 BCE. These juries voted by secret ballot and were eventually empowered to repeal unconstitutional laws, introducing the practice of judicial review. In modern justice systems the law is viewed as "self-contained" and "distinct from other coercive forces and viewed as separate from the political life of the community", but "all of these barriers are absent in the context of classical Athens." In practice and conception, the law and its administration are indistinguishable in some important respects from the life of the community in general. "

In the judges' juries in Eyre, the bailiff of the hundred selected 4 voters, who in turn chose 12 others out of their hundreds, and from these 12 jurors were selected.

18th century England

In 1730 the British Parliament passed the law to better regulate juries. The law stipulated that the list of all those responsible for the jury service in each municipality should be published and that the jury committees should be selected from these lists by lot, also known as sorting. Their aim was to prevent middle-class citizens from evading their responsibilities by questioning financially the neutrality of the sub-sheriff, the civil servant entrusted with impersonating juries.

Before the law, the main means of ensuring impartiality was to legally challenge the sheriff's decisions. The new rules were not specifically aimed at establishing impartiality, but increased the authority of the jury by guaranteeing impartiality at the time of selection.

The example of English legal reform of the early 18th century shows how citizen lotteries can be used to organize the duties and responsibilities of the citizenry in relation to the state. It established the impartiality and neutrality of the juries and confirmed the dual nature of the relationship between citizens and the state. The need for a leader / organizer on a jury is very important to get a correct and agreed judgment.

19th century England

In 1825 the rules for selecting the jury were consolidated. Property qualifications and various other rules were standardized, although an exception was left open for cities that "had" their own courts. This reflected a more general understanding that local officials maintained a high level of discretion about who actually summoned them. In the late 18th century, King found evidence that butchers were banned from serving in Essex. while Crosby has found evidence that "peripatetic ice cream vendors" weren't called in until the summer of 1923.

20th century England

After 1919, women were no longer excluded from the jury service based on their gender, although they still had to meet the usual property requirements. The exemption created by the 1825 Act for cities that "had" their own courts meant that ten cities could ignore the property qualifications. This reinforced the general understanding in these cities that local officials had a free hand to conjure freely among those qualified as jurors. In 1920 three of these ten cities - Leicester, Lincoln and Nottingham - insured juries of six men and six women. While in Bristol, Exeter and Norwich, assurances were given that no women were empowered at all. This quickly tightened the rules and removed the discretion of these ten cities. After 1922, trial juries across England had to meet the same qualifications; It was not until the 1980s that a central system for selecting jurors from those qualified for the service was developed. This meant that local officials still enjoyed a high level of discretion.

Size of the trial jury

Around 50 potential jurors are waiting for the jury to be selected

The size of the jury should offer a "cross section" of the public. In Williams versus Florida , 399, US 78 (1970), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Florida State jury of six is ​​sufficient, that "the twelve-member panel is not a necessary part of the" judicial process by a jury "". and the respondent's refusal to impanate more than the six members provided for by Florida law "did not violate the rights of the petitioner's sixth amendment, which were applied to states by the fourteenth". In Ballew versus Georgia , 435, US 223 (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the number of jurors could not be reduced below six.

In the Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278, the High Court of Australia unanimously decided that a jury of 12 members is not an essential feature of the "judicial process by a jury" in Section 80 of the Australian Constitution.

In Scotland, a jury in a criminal case consists of 15 judges, which is considered to be the largest in the world. In 2009, a review by the Scottish Government of the possibility of a reduction resulted in the decision to keep 15 jurors. The Justice Minister said that after extensive consultation, he had decided that Scotland was "uniquely right". Legal proceedings in the Republic of Ireland that are supposed to last longer than two months may or may not have 15 jurors.

A study by the University of Glasgow found that a civil jury of 12 was ineffective because some jurors dominated the discussion, and that seven was a better number because more people are comfortable and have an easier time reaching a unanimous decision.


In order for juries to fulfill their role in analyzing the facts, strict rules apply to the use of information during the process. Juries are often instructed not to learn about the case from sources other than the trial (e.g. the media or the Internet) and not to conduct their own investigations (e.g., visiting a crime scene independently). Parties, lawyers and witnesses are not allowed to speak to a member of the jury. Doing these things can be a reversible mistake. In rare cases, such as very important cases, the court may order a jury that has been seized for the deliberation phase or for the entire process.

Jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in the strictest confidence during the trial and deliberations, and in some jurisdictions even after a judgment has been issued. Under Canadian and English law, the jury's deliberations may never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case. Repeating parts of the process or judgment is considered contempt for the court, a criminal offense. In the United States, confidentiality is usually only required until a judgment has been reached, and jurors have sometimes made comments questioning whether a judgment was properly passed. In Australia, academics are not allowed to review the jury's process until they have received a certificate or approval from the Attorney General.

Because of the importance of preventing undue influence on a jury, manipulating the jury (like manipulating witnesses) is a serious crime, whether it be bribery, threats of violence, or any other means. Jurors themselves can also be held liable if they deliberately endanger their impartiality.


The role of the jury is described as that of a fact-finder, while the judge has sole responsibility for interpreting the relevant law and instructing the jury accordingly. The jury decides on the truth or falsity of allegations of fact and decides whether a defendant is guilty or a civil defendant is civilly liable. Sometimes a jury makes certain facts in a so-called "special judgment". A judgment with no specific factual findings, which only includes liability or civil liability statements and a total amount of civil damage, is called a "general judgment".

Juries are often justified because they acidify the law with community norms. A court ruling in one case is only binding in that case and not a legally binding precedent in other cases. For example, one jury could determine that certain behavior is negligent and another jury could determine that the behavior is not negligent without either of the judgments being valid based on exactly the same evidence of fact. Of course, no two witnesses are exactly alike, and even the same witness will not testify in exactly the same way twice, so it would be difficult to prove. It is the job of the judge, not the jury, to determine which law applies to a particular issue. Occasionally, however, jurors find the law invalid or unfair and on that basis acquit the defendant regardless of the evidence presented that the defendant has broken the law. This is commonly referred to as "the jury's annulment of the right" or simply the jury's annulment. If there is no jury ("banking process"), the judge decides on both legal and factual issues. In most continental European jurisdictions, judges have more powers in a process and the role and powers of a jury are often limited. Actual jury rights and judicial processes vary significantly between countries.

The juries' collective knowledge and intent are also cited as reasons for them:

Detailed interviews with jurors after judging judgments in court cases with complex expert statements have shown careful and critical analysis. The jurors questioned clearly recognized that the experts were selected within an opposing process. They used sensible techniques to assess the experts' testimony, such as: B. Assess the completeness and consistency of the testimony, compare it to other evidence in the process, and evaluate it against their own knowledge and life experience. In addition, the research shows that jurors in deliberations combine their individual views on the evidence and discuss their relative merits before reaching a verdict.

In the United States, juries are sometimes asked to make factual determinations on specific subjects when instructed to do so by a judge in the jury's instructions. This may include, for example, aggravating circumstances that are used to increase the defendant's sentence if the defendant is convicted. This practice was in all death penalty cases Blakely versus Washington , 542, USA, 296 (2004), in which the Supreme Court ruled that allowing judges to unilaterally make such determinations violates the Sixth Amendment right to trial. A similar argument of the sixth change in Apprendi versus New Jersey , 530, US 466 (2000), resulted in the Supreme Court having the requirement on all criminal cases expanded and noted that "any fact that increases the penalty for an offense beyond the statutory maximum is required." submitted to a jury and proven beyond doubt ".

Many U.S. jurisdictions allow the establishment of an advisory jury in a civil case where there is no right to be tried by a jury to provide non-binding advice to the trial judge, although this procedural tool is rarely used. For example, a judge could set up an advisory jury to assist the judge in awarding non-economic damages (such as "pain and suffering") when there is no right to trial, such as (depending on state law) a case, which concerns "just" rather than "legal" claims.

In Canada, juries are also allowed to propose terms for sentencing at the time of conviction. The jury's proposals are presented to the judge by the Crown Prosecutors before the verdict is passed. In a small number of US jurisdictions, including the states of Tennessee and Texas, juries are tasked with both finding guilt or innocence and judging and determining penalties.

However, this is not the case in most of the other legal systems in the English tradition, where the judges retain sole responsibility for deciding penalties under the law. The exception is the granting of damages in defamation cases under English law, although a judge is now required to give the jury a recommendation as to the fair amount.

In legal systems based on English tradition, findings of fact by a jury and conclusions of the jury that might be supported by factual findings of the jury, even if the specific factual basis for the judgment is not known, are entitled to great consideration for the appeal. In other legal systems, it is generally possible for an appeals court to reconsider both factual findings and legal conclusions of the court, and in these systems evidence may be presented to the appellate courts equivalent to a de novo trial (new trial) of the contested factual findings. The finality of the court's findings of fact in legal systems based on English tradition has a major impact on the judicial process in those systems. For this reason, it is imperative that attorneys are highly prepared for the trial, as errors and misjudgments related to presenting evidence to a jury generally cannot later be corrected, especially in court systems based on the English Based on tradition. The higher the stake, the more this is true. Surprises in trial are far more momentous in court systems based on the English tradition than in other legal systems.

Annulment by the jury

The annulment of the jury means the decision not to apply the law to the facts in a particular case by a decision of the jury. In other words, it is "the process by which a jury in a criminal case effectively overturns a law by acquitting a defendant, regardless of the burden of proof against him or her".

There were a number of such cases in the 17th and 18th centuries, beginning in 1670 with the trial of the Quaker William Penn, in which the (de facto) right, or at least the power of a jury, was asserted to pass a judgment that was the Judgment contradicts facts or laws. A good example is the case of a Carnegie of Finhaven who accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore in 1728. Since the accused had undoubtedly killed the earl, the law (as it was) required the jury to pass judgment that the case had been "proven" and to let Carnegie of Finhaven die for an accidental murder. Instead, the jury claimed what is considered their "old right" to judge the entire case, not just the facts, and came up with a "not guilty" verdict. This led to the development of the unproven judgment in the Scottish law.

In the United States today, juries are instructed by the judge to follow the judge's instructions regarding the law and render a judgment solely on the evidence presented in court. Important previous abolitionist exercises include cases of slavery (see Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), freedom of the press (see John Peter Zenger), and freedom of religion (see William Penn).

In the United States versus Moylan , 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1969), the Fourth Circle Court of Appeal decided unanimously: "If the jury is of the opinion that the law according to which the accused is accused is unjust or urgent circumstances justify it." Actions of the accused, or for any reason appealing to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit them, and the courts must comply with that decision. "The Fully Informed Jury Association is a not-for-profit educational organization that aims to educate jurors about their rights and to encourage the passage of laws so that judges can inform jurors that they can and should judge the law the Case Sparf v. United States , 156, US 51 (1895), the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a trial judge is not responsible for advising the jury of the right to have a law set aside.

Modern American jurisprudence is generally intolerant of this practice, and a juror can be removed from a case if the judge believes that the juror is aware of the power of annulment.

Jury equity

There is a similar power in the UK, often referred to as "Jury Equity". This enables a jury to make a decision that is directly contrary to the law if they deem the law to be unjust. This can set a compelling precedent for future cases, or it can lead prosecutors not to bring charges - hence, a jury has the power to influence the law.

The standard justification for the equity of the jury comes from the last pages of Lord Devlin's book "Trial by Jury". Devlin explained the justice of the jury through two now famous metaphors: The jury is "the lamp that shows that freedom lives" and a "small parliament". The second metaphor emphasizes that the juries, like MPs in general, are dominated by the government but can occasionally assert their independence, are usually dominated by judges but can, in exceptional circumstances, remove that control. Devlin wanted to emphasize that neither the justice of the jury nor the judicial review are set in stone.

Perhaps the best example of jury justice in England and Wales today was the acquittal of Clive Ponting on charges of divulging classified information under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act of 1911 in 1985. Mr. Ponting's defense was that the disclosure was in the public interest. The trial judge instructed the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says" - effectively an instruction for the jury to judge. Even so, the jury came to the conclusion that it was not guilty.

Another example is the acquittal in 1989 of Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, who stood before the court, kidnapped the Soviet spy George Blake from Wermut Scrubs prison and smuggled him into East Germany in 1966. The judge's order to investigate only whether the defendants were legally guilty and to assert the old right of a jury to dismiss a politically motivated prosecution, in this case compounded by their cynical lateness.

In Scotland (with a separate legal system from England and Wales) the "not guilty" judgment was originally a form of jury annulment, but over time the interpretation has changed so that the "not guilty" judgment is now the norm has become one when a jury is not convinced of guilt and the "unproven" judgment is only used when the jury is unsure whether it is innocent or guilty. It is absolutely vital to Scottish and English law that the presumption of innocence exists. This is not a trivial distinction, as any shift in the burden of proof represents a substantial change that undermines the protection of the citizen.

Non-judicial juries

In addition to small juries for legal proceedings and large juries for issuing indictments, juries are sometimes used in non-legal or quasi-legal contexts. Blue Ribbon Juries act as an ad hoc body in the executive branch of a government to deal with civic affairs. Outside the government, a jury or a jury can make decisions in the competition, such as: B. at a wine tasting, an art exhibition, a talent competition or a reality game show. These types of competitions are judged competitions.

Blue ribbon juries are juries chosen from prominent, well-educated citizens to sometimes investigate a specific problem such as corruption in the civilian population. Blue ribbon juries cannot be used in real legal proceedings that require constitutional safeguards to form a jury of peers. The Blue Ribbon Jury is designed to overcome the problems of ordinary juries in interpreting complex technical or commercial questions. In the United States, there were statutory blue ribbon juries, the terms of which vary by jurisdiction.

Test procedure



Each state can determine the extent to which a jury is used. The use of a jury is optional for civil litigation in any Australian state. The use of a jury in criminal proceedings is usually based on a unanimous judgment of 12 lay people from the public. Some states provide for exceptions such as majority judgments (11 to 1 or 10 to 2) where a jury cannot otherwise pass a judgment. In all states except Victoria, a person charged with a crime may be tried by a judge alone, rather than the standard jury designation.

Commonwealth (Federal)

Section 80 of the Australian Constitution provides that "the trial of a criminal offense against Commonwealth law shall be conducted by a jury". The Commonwealth can determine which offenses are “charged”. It would be entirely in accordance with the Constitution that a homicide offense could not be tried “on charge” or, conversely, that a simple attack could not be tried “on charge”. This interpretation has been criticized as "ridiculing" the section, rendering it unusable.

When a trial against the indictment has been mandated, it is essential that the public have found a unanimous conviction of 12 lay people. This requirement arises from the (historical) meaning of “jury” at the time the constitution was drafted and is therefore (in principle) an essential part of the jury's process. Unlike in the Australian states, an accused cannot choose judge-only trial, even if both the accused and the prosecutor seek such trial.


The Belgian Constitution provides that all cases involving the most serious offenses are judged by juries. To protect against defamation cases, crimes against the press can only be negotiated by a jury. Racism is excluded from this protection.

Twelve jurors decide by a qualified majority of two thirds whether the accused is guilty or not. A tie results in "not guilty"; The 3 professional judges who can unanimously reverse the majority to "not guilty" receive the vote "7 guilty - 5 not guilty". The verdict is pronounced by the majority of the 12 jurors and the 3 professional judges. As a result of the Taxquet Judgment, the juries nowadays state the most important motives that lead them to their judgment. The code of practice has been changed to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights.


The Constitution of Brazil provides that only willful crimes against life, namely full or attempted murder, abortion, infanticide and inducement to commit suicide, will be judged by juries. Seven jurors vote in secret to decide whether the accused is guilty or not, and decisions are made by the majority.

Manslaughter and other crimes where the murder was committed unintentionally will instead be judged by a professional judge.


In Canada, juries are used for some criminal cases but not for others. For summary convictions or criminal offenses under Section 553 of the Criminal Code (theft and fraud up to a value of $ 5,000 and certain harassment offenses), the trial is in a judge alone. For most criminal offenses, the accused can choose to be tried by a judge alone or by a judge and a jury. A judge and a jury are always used for the most serious crimes under Section 469 of the Criminal Code (such as murder or treason), unless both the accused and the public prosecutor agree that the proceedings should not take place in front of a jury. The jury's verdict on the final disposition of guilt or innocence must be unanimous, but cannot agree on the evidence that leads to this disposition.

The juries do not make any recommendation as to the length of the sentence, with the exception of the inadmissibility of parole for second degree murder (however, the judge is not bound by the recommendation of the jury, and the jury is not required to make a recommendation).

The jury is selected according to certain criteria. Prospective jurors may only be asked specific questions selected for their direct relevance to impartiality or other relevant matters. All other questions must be approved by the judge.

A jury in criminal proceedings is initially composed of 12 jurors. It is at the discretion of the trial judge to determine the appointment of one or two alternate jurors. If a juror is dismissed during the process, the process will proceed with an alternate juror unless the number of jurors is less than 10.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that anyone tried for an offense with a maximum sentence of five years or more has the right to be tried by a jury (with the exception of an offense under military law).

The names of the jurors are protected by a publication ban. There is a specific offense for item disclosure that takes place during the deliberations of the jury.

Juries are rarely used in civil litigation in Canada. There are no civil juries in the provincial courts of Quebec or in federal courts.


In the cour d'assises

Three professional judges sit alongside six jurors in first instance proceedings or nine in appeal proceedings. Before 2012, there were nine or twelve jurors, but they were scaled back to cut spending. A two-thirds majority is required to convict the accused. During these proceedings, judges and jurors have the same position on questions of fact, while judges decide on procedural questions. Judges and juries also have the same positions when sentencing.


In most of the German federal states, legal proceedings were initiated after the revolutionary events of 1848. However, it remained controversial. and steps were taken to abolish it at the beginning of the 20th century. The Emminger reform of January 4, 1924, during a state of emergency under Article 48, repealed the jury system and replaced it with a mixed system that included bank trials and lay judges.

In 1925 the Social Democrats called for the jury to be reinstated; A special session of the German Bar Association called for the decrees to be repealed, but "on the whole, the abolition of the jury caused little excitement". Their judgments were widely perceived as unfair and inconsistent.

Nowadays most offenses are from you Criminal judge put on trial , that is, a single judge at one District Court . Crimes and more serious offenses are also covered by one Local court resident Jury negotiates, which consists of 1 judge and 2 lay judges. Some offenses are committed by Extended jury court or extended Jury negotiates composed of 2 judges and 2 lay judges. serious crimes and other "special" crimes are attempted by the large criminal chamber , consisting of 3 judges and two lay judges on district Court , with specially assigned courts called for some crimes Special Criminal Chamber ; Crimes that lead to the death of a person are committed by the Jury court , consisting of 3 judges and 2 lay judges, at district Court negotiated. and serious crimes against the state are dated Criminal senate , consisting of 5 judges, in front of one Higher Regional Court negotiated.

In some civil cases, such as commercial or patent law, there are also lay judges who have to meet certain criteria (e.g. merchant).

Hong Kong

Article 86 of the Hong Kong Basic Law ensures the conduct of legal proceedings. Criminal cases in the High Court and some civil cases are heard by a jury in Hong Kong. There is no jury in the district court. In addition, the Coroner's Court may from time to time invite a jury to determine the cause of death in an investigation. Criminal cases are usually heard by a 7-person jury and sometimes a 9-person jury at the discretion of the court. However, the jury regulation stipulates that a jury in a procedure must consist of at least 5 jurors.

Article 86 of the Basic Law states that "the principle of judicial proceedings previously practiced in Hong Kong by a jury should be maintained", but does not guarantee that every case will be heard by a jury. In the case Chiang Lily versus Attorney General (2010) the appellate court agreed that "Hong Kong has no right to a judicial process by a jury".


Legal proceedings were abolished in most Indian courts by the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code. The Nanavati case was not the last jury trial in India. West Bengal still had jury trials in 1973. Juries were not mentioned in the 1950 Indian Constitution and were ignored in many Indian states. The Law Commission recommended its abolition in its 14th report in 1958. They have been kept discreetly for divorce courts in Parsi, with a group of members known as "delegates" being chosen at random from the community to rule on the matter. The Parsi Divorce Act is subject to the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936, amended in 1988, and is a mixture of the Panchayat legal system and the jury process.


The law in Ireland is historically based on English common law and has had a similar jury system. Article 38 of the Irish Constitution of 1937 provides for judicial proceedings for criminal offenses, with the exception of minor offenses, military tribunals and when "the ordinary courts are insufficient to ensure the effective administration of justice and the maintenance of public peace and public order". . DPP v. McNally declared that a jury has the right to pass a judgment that is not guilty, even in direct contradiction to the evidence.

The main law governing the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the Juries Act 1976, as amended by the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. A fine of € 500 will be imposed for failure to report for jury service although this was poorly enforced until a 2016 revision of the Judicial Service Policy. Jury trials are held in the Circuit Court or the Central Criminal Court. At the request of the Director of the Public Prosecutor's Office (DPP), judicial proceedings will take place before the special criminal court in the context of the inadequacy exception dealing with terrorism or organized crime. Juries are also used in some civil litigation, such as defamation; They are sometimes used in coroner's investigations.

The juries are typically made up of twelve people and are selected from a jury chosen at random from the electoral register by the county registrar. Juries decide only on questions of fact and play no role in the criminal conviction. It is not necessary for a jury to be unanimous in its judgment. In civil matters, a judgment can be made with a majority of nine of the twelve members. In a criminal case, a judgment need not be unanimous if there are no fewer than eleven jurors, if ten of them reach a verdict after reviewing the case for a "reasonable amount of time". Juries are neither paid nor do they receive travel expenses. However, they will be given lunch for the days they serve. The Legal Reform Commission examined the jury service and prepared a consultation paper in 2010 and a report in 2013. One of their recommendations to allow additional jurors for lengthy trials, in case some are excused, was made in 2013. In November 2013, the DPP was passed, applied for by a 15-member jury in the trial of three executives of the Anglo Irish Bank. If there are more than twelve jurors present, twelve will be selected by lot to retire and review the verdict.


In Italy, a civil law jurisdiction, these are untrained judges only in the Corte d'Assise, where two career magistrates are supported by six so-called magistrates Lay judge that will be raffled from the registrar of voters. Any Italian citizen between the ages of 30 and 65, regardless of sex or religion, can be appointed as lay judge. To act as lay judge for the Corte d'Assise admitted to However, there is a minimum requirement for training as the lay judge does his training at the stage Scuola Media (Junior High School) is required for the Corte d'Assise d'Appello (Corte d'Assise vocation level) towards the degree Scuola Superiore (Upper level) raised. In the Corte d'Assise, decisions on factual and legal issues are made by the scholarship holders and the "lay judges" together at a special session behind closed doors with the name Camera di Consiglio ("Bar Association") and the Court will then be required to publish written statements of its decisions within 90 days of the judgment. Errors in law or inconsistencies in the explanation of a decision can and usually will result in the decision being overturned. A Court d'Assise and a Court d'Assise d'Appello decide a majority of the votes and therefore predominantly the votes of lay judges who have a majority of six to two, but in fact lay judges who are not trained to make such statements writing, and having to rely on one or the other fellow to do so, is effectively prevented from overwriting both. The Corte d'Assise is responsible for prosecuting crimes with a maximum sentence of 24 years in prison or life imprisonment as well as other serious crimes. The crimes that fall under its jurisdiction include terrorism, murder, manslaughter, serious attempts against government figures, and some legal issues that require ethical and professional evaluation (e.g. assisted suicide), while generally not having jurisdiction over cases whose evaluation requires knowledge of the law, which "lay judges" generally do not have. Sentences imposed by the court can include life imprisonment.

New Zealand

Juries are used in legal proceedings for all legal proceedings involving Category 4 offenses such as treason, murder and manslaughter. In exceptional cases, however, sole judicial proceedings can be ordered. At the choice of the accused, jurors may serve in judicial proceedings involving Category 3 offenses, that is, offenses for which the maximum sentence is two years or more. In civil cases, juries are only used in cases of defamation, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The juries must first try to reach a unanimous decision. However, if one cannot be achieved in a reasonable time frame, the criminal and three case judge may accept a majority judgment of all but one (ie 11–1 or 10–1). Quarter (ie 9–3 or 9–2) in civil matters.


There were juries in Norway as early as 800 and maybe even earlier. They brought the jury system to England and Scotland. The juries were not set up until the 17th century when the Norwegian central government was in Copenhagen, Denmark. Although Norway and Denmark had different legal systems in their personal union (1387–1536) and later in the government union (1536–1814), attempts were made to harmonize the legal systems of both countries. Even if the juries were abolished, the layman continued to play an important role in the legal system across Norway.

The jury was reinstated in 1887 and then used exclusively in criminal cases in the second tier of the Norwegian three-tier court system ("Lagmannsretten"). The jury consisted of 10 people and had to pass a majority judgment that consisted of seven or more jurors. The jury never gave a reason for their verdict, but simply gave a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict.

In a way, the concept of being judged by peers existed at both the first and second levels of the Norwegian judicial system: in Tingretten, one judge and two lay judges preside, in Lagmannsretten two judges and five lay judges preside. The lay judges have no legal qualifications and represent the colleagues of the person on trial as members of the general public. As a guarantee against abuse of power by the educated elite, the number of lay judges always exceeds the number of appointed judges. Only trained lawyers sit in the Supreme Court.


The right to a judicial process is provided for in the Constitution of the Russian Federation,