Sometimes the opposite occurs, where an accused declines his right to a jury because he does not want local people to know the details of what he is alleged to have done. A defence lawyer who is advising an accused may have different considerations.
Cases which are mainly about the law are probably better suited to the assessment of a judge. In a jury trial, the judge explains to the jury what the applicable law is; the jury then has to apply that law to the evidence and determine the verdict.
A criminal trial must always begin with 12 jurors, and the law allows for up to two to be excused as the trial proceeds. Cases where the main question is what precisely took place between the people involved are sometimes better suited for a jury, but not always. Even for a judge, finding a coherent, logical way through a tangled web of evidence can be a challenge. Juries are always told they must not allow sympathy to play a role in their decision-making, but in the real world sympathy is almost always a factor taken into account in choosing whether to have a jury trial.
An accused who will likely be seen with sympathy and compassion by other persons may more likely want a jury. Sympathy and compassion can also weigh against an accused, in which case they will more likely not want a jury trial. If a particularly vulnerable person is the victim or an important prosecution witness, the accused might want a judge alone: a judge must dispassionately apply the law, and provide logical reasons which show she has done that, no matter how sad or sympathetic the plight of the victim might be.
Similarly, if the crime alleged is particularly violent and the evidence expected to be graphic, a judge might be a better choice, as he or she will be less likely swayed by the horror of what they are hearing and seeing than might be the case with a jury, who might let feelings of revulsion and anger sway their reasoning.
In the most serious situations murder trials the Criminal Code requires the trial be in front of a jury unless both sides agree to have a judge sit alone. The theory is that in the most serious cases, where someone has died and someone faces imprisonment for the rest of his or her life, community representatives, under the guidance of a judge who knows the law, should make this important decision. In murder trials, we can usually be satisfied that the final verdict has been reached after the careful consideration and close attention paid by 12 ordinary community members who have brought their common sense and everyday wisdom to bear upon the issues they have been told to consider.
We view juries as a fundamental protector of our liberties and freedoms, — 12 ordinary, independent fellow citizens who can protect us from the whims and arbitrariness of decisions made by officials who are beholden to the sovereign, a local figure, or other arms of government. When it comes to deciding who from our communities should sit on a jury, the process is designed to ensure independence and impartiality. The first step is to summon a large group of persons selected from the community at random, to attend a court sitting to choose a jury.
Jurors bring with them to court their life experience and common-sense and are expected, just like judges, to act impartially and without sympathy or prejudice towards anyone involved in the case. While a small fee and expenses are paid to jurors, jurors often report that the real reward is the sense of satisfaction of being involved in the important work of the courts and the opportunity to work collaboratively with a group of fellow citizens.
Jurors are expected to answer their summonses. Judges realise that jury service is not always convenient and we appreciate the thousands of our fellow citizens who willingly turn up to perform this important public function.
On behalf of my fellow judges I extend our gratitude to those who have answered a summons for jury service. We also commend serving as a juror to the public, both as an interesting experience and one that is vital to the functioning of our courts and upholding the rule of law.
This website explains many of the things you might want to know if you are coming to the Youth Court, or just wondering how the Youth Court works. Ministry of Justice website with information on family issues including about going to court, forms and other times when you may need help. The UK has done away with this process altogether as it interferes with the important perception that juries are fairly chosen and therefore represent the community.
Several Australian studies confirm our juries reflect a cross-section of our community in terms of cultural mix, age and gender balance. Juries are more likely to be better educated than the ordinary member of the public. Jurors are forbidden from having any prior intimate knowledge of the trial, from privately communicating with anyone involved in the trial and from doing their own research.
Maintaining the impartiality of jurors has become problematic in the digital age. Last century, courts used to successfully make orders to suppress potentially prejudicial information such as prior convictions. Jurors are told by the judge not to look at any media reports on their case.
But jurors on trials of high profile defendants may not be able to avoid the barrage of negative pre-trial publicity. US research suggests jurors who are exposed to negative publicity are significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to subjects exposed to less pre-trial publicity.
New South Wales, Queensland, the ACT, South Australia and Western Australia allow a defendant to apply for trial by judge without a jury when prejudicial publicity is perceived to be significant. But there is no research that confirms a judge sitting alone without a jury is any better at resisting prejudicial publicity.
Read more: Trial by judge alone may not be the answer to giving high-profile defendants a fair hearing. A typical jury trial will take fewer than ten days.
The jurors hear the evidence, listen to the arguments of both parties and are provided with instructions on the relevant law by the judge. No written reasons for the verdicts are required. The vast majority of juries are able to reach their verdict unanimously. In some types of cases, agreement of 11 out of 12 jurors is an acceptable verdict.
0コメント