The History and Future of the Jury System in America
By Timothy Sexton, published Jan 08, 2007
Terminology- voir dire (IPA /vwɑr dir/) is a phrase in law which derives from Middle French. In origin it refers to an oath to tell the truth (Latin verum dicĕre), in other words to give a true verdict. The word voir (or voire), in this context, is an old French word meaning "truth". It is unconnected with the modern French word voir, which derives from Latin vidēre ("to see"), though the expression is now often interpreted by false etymology to mean "to see [them] say".
o In the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and sometimes in the US it refers to a "trial within a trial". A hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence, or the competency of a witness or juror.
o In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. As Gordon P. Cleary defined voir dire in his book Trial Evidence Foundations (James Publishing, 2007 at section 201), "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case." For more detail, see Jury selection.
- Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Liberatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution. It required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 18th century. By the second half of the 19th century however, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.
The Magna Carta was the first document that was forced onto an English King by his subjects in an attempt to limit his powers by law. (It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated what his own powers were under the law).History
In practice Magna Carta mostly did not limit the power of the King in the Middle Ages; by the time of the English Civil War however it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law.
Magna Carta is normally understood to refer to a single document, that of 1215. Various amended versions of the Magna Carta appeared in subsequent years however, and it is in fact the 1297 version which remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
- The concept of twelve strangers deciding the fate of another stranger dates back to a document formed at the height of the power of British monarchy. On June 15, 1215 rebellious barons forced King John of England to affix his seal to a list of freedoms and liberties. However, these rights were never intended to be enjoyed by the masses as some sort of democratic ideal. Despite this limited targeting of rights, it is the Magna Carta from which the term "a jury of one's peers" springs and not the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. In practice, however, this was done to reduce the powers of the king to restrict him from creating laws at his whim. In addition, in local cases where laws were broken the result typically tended to be violent resolutions and the clauses in the Magna Carta were designed to bring a means whereby disputes could be solved equitably.
- The right to a trial by jury is one of the Constitutional foundations of American law. So important was the concept of trial overseen by a jury of one's peers that it was included among the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment is a codification of the rights to be granted to individuals in case of criminal prosecutions in federal courts. With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, these rights were made applicable at the state level. The trial by jury is a bedrock foundation for jurisprudence in the US. The founding fathers were heavily influence by the Magna Carta in the development of the constitutional law of the land and viewed their own revolutionary break with King George III as analogous in some ways to the revolutionary spirit that inspired the Magna Carta in the first place. It is incredibly difficult to imagine the American legal system operating under any other method.
- The jury system has undergone various transformations over the century.
- (1968) Jury Selection and Service Act mandated that the pool of jury names be selected from registered voters and that names be randomly selected.
- American citizens can only serve on juries in those states in which they are official residents.
- Exemptions include not being a US citizen and not being able to understand the English language, as well as certain physical disabilities such as blindness, deafness, physical infirmities and age. Obviously, those under the age of eighteen are not allowed to serve on a jury, but elderly people are also typically allowed to be exempt. Those with pressing occupational excuses typically tend to receive exemptions as well. For instance, doctors and nurses rarely serve on juries lasting more than a day. Clergymen also usually receive exemptions.
- The function of the jury in the American judicial system is to attend the trial and deliberate on the evidence in order to provide a unanimous verdict. The point of a jury system is that it is supposed to provide a fair and unbiased examination of the evidence; taking away the power of the judge who may be prejudicial in his decision.
- In addition, many view the use of jury as an important defense against unchecked power in the hands of the state. When the state controls the delivery and judgment of evidence the possibility for abuse increase exponentially.
- A US jury verdict must be unanimous, regardless of what the verdict is. Should a unanimous decision not be made, the term used to describe that circumstance is a hung jury. A hung jury does not mean that the defendant is either guilty or innocent; the decision on whether to try the person again or not falls into the hands of the district attorney.
- The English jury is also 12-person system, but allows for the possibility of a non-unanimous verdict. At the discretion of the judge, if deliberations go past a certain point he can instruct the jury that a verdict can be brought based on a 10-2 vote.
- In other countries there are stipulations as to which kinds of crimes are tried by jury.
- People of some other nations actually frown upon putting their fate into the hands of their peers. The very idea of letting an uneducated person control their destiny is absolute anathema.
- Although the US court system has a vicious history of jury nullification in which all-white juries convicted blacks of crimes they not only were innocent of committing, but which the jury members knew they were innocent of committing, it several infamous cases during the 1990s that led to scrutiny about the very fairness of the jury system in America today.
- Many high-profile trials that ended in hung juries were discovered to have been nearly unanimous with only one or two holdouts. Subsequently there have been some efforts made to follow England's move toward allowing non-unanimous verdicts.
No comments:
Post a Comment