The choice of the jury is the selection of persons who will be the judges during the jury trial. The jury group ("jury pool", also known as venire ) was first selected from amongst the community using a random method. The jury list is compiled from voter registration and driver license or ID update. From the list, calls are sent. The jury panel was then assigned to the courtroom. Prospective jurors are randomly selected to sit in the jury box. At this stage they will be tried in court by judges and/or lawyers in the United States. Depending on the jurisdiction, lawyers may have the opportunity to file a challenge argument for causes or use one of a limited number of repression challenges. In some jurisdictions that have the death penalty, the jury must be eligible to remove those who oppose the death penalty. The choice and technique of the jury for voir dire is taught to law students in experimental advocacy courses. However, lawyers sometimes use expert help in choosing the jury systematically, although the use of other jury studies is becoming more common. The selected jury is said to have been "empaneled".
Video Jury selection
See say
The selected jury is generally subject to an examination system in which either the prosecution (or the plaintiff, in civil cases) and the defense may object to the jury. In a common law state, this is known as voir dire . Voir dire can include commonly asked questions from all juries, answered in such a way as hand raising, and questions raised to individual jurors and calling for verbal answers. In some jurisdictions, attorneys for parties may question prospective jurors; in other jurisdictions, the court judge conducts voir dire .
The methods and scope of rejection may vary between countries:
- In the UK, this objection must be very good, as the defendant knows the prospective jurors, to be allowed.
- Some jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the United States, defend and prosecute unlimited prosecution challenges. No justification has to be made to exclude a particular juror. Generally, defense attorneys exclude jurors who have a profession or background similar to the victim and who can thus feel an emotional connection with them, while the prosecutor excludes a jury that may show affinity to the defendant. However, in the United States, if one party excludes minority group members and others challenging, under Batson a party rule that commits a peremptory warning should provide a racially-neutral excuse for exclusion (later renewed by a court decision to gender neutral reasons as well). Parties have been known to dare to attack a jury based on personal characteristics that would not justify strikes for cause, but which they believe make jurors less likely to sympathize with their side.
- In some jurisdictions, the attorney also has the right to make the argument for the cause to the judge. This is an argument about whether a particular jury's background or beliefs make them biased and therefore unsuitable for service on the jury.
United States
In the United States, the voir dire process is often much deeper than in other countries and its practical application is somewhat controversial because of this. The amount of privacy that a potential juror gives when asking a question raises the definition of an "impartial judge". Some people are skeptical about whether intensive questions from prospective jurors not only look at inherent biases but also potentially become emotionally wobbly. On the other hand, advocates argue that this method gives both parties more confidence in the verdict.
Canada
Section XX of the Criminal Code of Canada allows a jury in a murder trial in Canada composed of twelve juries. However, a minimum of ten juries and a maximum of 14 jurors can hear evidence of the trial. At the end of the trial, a maximum of twelve jurors and a minimum of ten juries may negotiate.
Section 631 (2.2) and section 643 of the Criminal Code specify that a jury may consist of 12, 13 or 14 members, yet, 12 is the most common. Section 631 (2.2) allows a judge to order 13 or 14 juries to be sworn in certain circumstances.
The jury can also be forgiven for the duration of the trial. According to article 644 (1) of the Criminal Code, a judge may relieve any jury during court proceedings due to illness or other "natural causes" such as impartiality (see R1 Tsouma 1973) and Rv Holcomb (1973)). Section 644 (2) further stipulates that the jury is still correct to complete its duties even if a jury is dismissed during the trial as long as the number of judges is not reduced below ten.
At the end of the trial and following the jury's request, a maximum of twelve jurors may negotiate. It takes the judge to draw a number from the box to decide which jury to dismiss to reduce the jury to twelve.
Identify the Jury When filing a jury, section 631 (3) of the Criminal Code states that the court clerk will withdraw appropriate juries and read out the names and numbers of each card in the courtroom. In this sense, the identity of the jury will be disclosed to all parties. However, s. 631 (3.1) goes on to say that the judge may order that the court clerk will simply call the number on each card, thereby detaining the names of the jurors. This usually occurs at the time of the request by the prosecutor or when the judge considers it necessary to protect the safety and privacy of the jurors.
Under s. 631 (6) of the Code, the presiding judge may make an order directing that the identity of jurors or any information which may disclose their identity is not published or transmitted in any way; or restrict access to or use of that information. This amendment to s. 361 was introduced in 2001, with the aim of "protecting the jury from intimidation, and allowing the jury to participate effectively by making them free to act without being subjected to threats, prejudice, intimidation or physical injury" (R v Jacobson, 2004). 1432 (OSCJ), in paragraph 23).
Peremptory Challenges
In Canada, the number of peremptory challenges (ie, challenges with no reason given) for jury selection is governed by Article 634 of the Canadian Criminal Code. The number of peremptory challenges varies depending on the nature of the offense. Prosecutors and defendants are each allowed: twenty challenges for first-degree murder or high treason; twelve challenges for any offense, except for first-degree murder or high treason, where a prison sentence of more than five years is a possible penalty, and; four challenges in which the defendant was charged with a lesser offense (s 634 (2), Criminal Code of Canada).
If multiple violations are tried together, the largest number of applicable uses (ie, in violations involving first-degree murder and armed robbery, defendants and prosecutors are each entitled to twenty peremptory challenges) [s. 634 (3), the Canadian Criminal Code].
When many suspects are tried together, each defendant is entitled to the same number they will receive if tried separately, while prosecutors have many challenges such as the total amount available to all defendants (ie, in cases where the defendant is charged with first-degree murder , each receiving twenty challenges to be redeemed, and the prosecutor receiving forty) [s. 634 (4), the Canadian Criminal Code].
The number of peremptory challenges can also vary according to the state of the jury. Prosecutors and defendants are each entitled to an additional peremptory challenge if there are 13 jurors, or two additional challenges each in the case of 14 judges (634 (2.01), the Canadian Criminal Code). In addition, the number of peremptory challenges increases as if the judge made an order for an alternative judge with an additional level of challenge for each party per alternative jury (634 (2.1), the Canadian Criminal Code). In the event that replacement judges are required, each party is also entitled to one challenge per individual reimbursement (s 634 (2.2) of the Canadian Criminal Code).
Challenges for Causes Section 638 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the basis on which individual jurors can be challenged for reasons. A party that seeks to challenge the allegiance of a juror candidate must first point out to the court that there is 'air of reality' for the application (see R v Sherratt, [1991] 1 SCR 509). A party can do this by establishing that there is a realistic potential for alignment (see Rv Williams, [1998] 1 SCR 1128).
Section 640 of the Criminal Code provides for procedures to deal with the challenges of cause. A challenge for reasons based on the reasons mentioned under section 638, other than the name of the jury not appearing in the panel, will be tried by the last two judges to be sworn in. If no Jurors are sworn in, the judge will appoint two people to try to challenge the cause. After the application by the defendant, the court may use its policy to exclude all sworn and not judged juries from the courtroom until the challenge for the cause is decided. The two trier challenges for the cause must decide the question on the balance of probability.
Pre-Hearing Conference Section XX of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the Procedures in the Trial Jury. Section 625.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada is is the authority for pre-hearing conferences.
Pre-hearing conference is a conference held before the beginning of the experiment. It was held between the prosecutor and the defendant (or the lawyer for the defendant) and presided over by the court. The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is to promote fair and prompt trials. It considers things that would be better decided before the start of the trial and make arrangements for the decision of those things.
Neither the prosecutor, the defense, or the judge can initiate a motion for a pre-hearing conference.
The pre-heard conference is required for any case to be tried by a jury (per 625.1 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Code). This should be headed by a court judge who will try the defendant, and must be held in accordance with the court rules made under sections 482 and 482.1.
Case Law: A pre-trial conference judge has no jurisdiction to review Crown disclosure decisions or to order disclosure.
Maps Jury selection
Qualification of death
In the United States, capital cases (cases where prosecutors pursue capital punishment), juries must often be "qualified persons". A qualified juror is one in which all members of the venire who categorically reject the death penalty are issued. This has the effect of ensuring that the jury will be willing to impose the death penalty, if they feel the crime guarantees it. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the practice is constitutional. The criticism of the objection to the qualification of death due to empirical evidence has shown that a death-qualified jury is more likely to punish the defendant for crimes than the jury in general.
Expert help
In the 1970s and 1980s in the United States, the selection of scientific judges - the use of expert aids to more effectively use peremptory challenges - became more common. This practice proved controversial due to fears that it gave lawyers the ability to "fix" the jury and increase the effect of money distortion. However, research shows that the effect of this exercise is the simplest.
Currently, more general jury consultations or jury research is increasingly common because lawyers who try high-risk cases seek help through all parts of the trial process. The more general field of consultation trials also contain a myriad of other tools and techniques not directly related to the jury.
Criticism
Packing jury is "illegally or corruptly affects the jury by making available to those jurors who are biased or partial in certain cases to be tried". This term is also applied in a humbling manner to a jury selection procedure which is legal but is considered unfair. In the nineteenth century, prosecutors had unlimited oppression challenges in Britain and Ireland, whereas defense was limited to six in the UK or 20 in Ireland. Peter O'Brien as Crown Attorney during the Irish Land War was nicknamed "Peter the Packer" by Irish Land League supporters. The pool from which the panel of judges is selected may not have the same demographics as the general population; until the nineteenth century or more in many jurisdictions, jury services, such as the electoral franchise, are restricted to male property owners.
In three studies of legal authoritarianism, attitudes toward psychiatrists, and attitudes to mad defense are examined as predictors of confidence-prone in cases of insanity defense. Some experts believe that 85% of the proposed cases are won or lost in the jury selection phase.
See also
- The jury of the questionnaire
- Runaway Jury (movie)
- Sorting
- Conflicting strikes
- Voir dire
References
Further reading
- Abramson, Jeffrey B., "We, the jury: the jury system and the ideals of democracy", Harvard University Press, 2000. ISBNÃ, 0-674-00430-2 Fukurai, Hiroshi (1996), "Race participation, social class, and jury: A new dimension to evaluate discrimination in jury and jury selection services", Journal Criminal Justice , 24 (1): 71-88, doi: 10.1016/0047-2352 (95) 00053-4.
- http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Out-of-Jury-Duty
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments