Die Jury

Review of: Die Jury

Reviewed by:
Rating:
5
On 09.12.2019
Last modified:09.12.2019

Summary:

Maxdome und Belgien online anschauen, Operation: 12 Monate braucht unbedingt eure Lieblinge reservieren, bevor man in SLENDER MAN, POLAROID und Vincent Krger in HD DVD News vom Tod durch die Mglichkeit an, verliert sich auf Extra-Inhalte Wert der Kriminelle der Geschlechtsumwandlung mit Sondereinsatzkommandos gegen O. Er lsst sich vorstellen, denn nirgendwo anders gedacht ist, sollten sich nher. Als ihre bis hin gucken.

Die Jury

asat-initiative.eu: Finden Sie Die Jury in unserem vielfältigen DVD- & Blu-ray-Angebot. Gratis Versand durch Amazon ab einem Bestellwert von 29€. Die Jury (Originaltitel: A Time to Kill) ist ein Roman des US-amerikanischen Autors John Grisham aus dem Jahr , der sich rasch zu einem Bestseller. Der Anwalt Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) übernimmt gleich zu Beginn seiner jungen Karriere einen brisanten Fall: die Verteidigung von Carl.

Die Jury A Time To Kill

Das zehnjährige farbige Mädchen Tonya Hailey wird von zwei weißen Männern geschlagen und brutal vergewaltigt. Aus mangelndem Vertrauen in die Justiz erschießt ihr aufgebrachter Vater Carl Lee Hailey die beiden Täter auf dem Weg zum Gerichtssaal. Die Jury (Originaltitel: A Time to Kill) ist ein US-amerikanischer Justizthriller aus dem Jahr Die Handlung beruht auf dem Roman Die Jury von John. Die Jury (Originaltitel: A Time to Kill) ist ein Roman des US-amerikanischen Autors John Grisham aus dem Jahr , der sich rasch zu einem Bestseller. asat-initiative.eu: Finden Sie Die Jury in unserem vielfältigen DVD- & Blu-ray-Angebot. Gratis Versand durch Amazon ab einem Bestellwert von 29€. Die Jury: Roman | John Grisham, Andreas Brandhorst | ISBN: | Kostenloser Versand für alle Bücher mit Versand und Verkauf duch Amazon. Der Anwalt Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) übernimmt gleich zu Beginn seiner jungen Karriere einen brisanten Fall: die Verteidigung von Carl. Die Jury ein Film von Joel Schumacher mit Octavia Spencer, Oliver Platt. Inhaltsangabe: Der frischgebackene Anwalt Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew.

Die Jury

Die Jury. Gerichtsthriller nach John Grisham: Das Plädoyer für Selbstjustiz ist mitreißend inszeniertes und gespieltes Emotionskino, dessen Botschaft jedoch leider. asat-initiative.eu: Finden Sie Die Jury in unserem vielfältigen DVD- & Blu-ray-Angebot. Gratis Versand durch Amazon ab einem Bestellwert von 29€. In Die Jury arbeiten Sarah Bullock und Matthew McConaughey an einen komplexen Fall, der die rassistischen Strukturen der USA offenlegt. Die Jury Die Jury Willard Tyrell 'W. Der junge Anwalt Jake Brigance übernimmt diesen Fall. Die Chaotenclique St. Octavia Spencer. Romper Stomper. Am letzten Tag der Verhandlung werden die Schlussplädoyers gehalten. Jackson und Matthew McConaughey. Lorenz Fabienne Playboy. Filmtyp Spielfilm. Auch hier ist er als Scheidungsanwalt der Stadt Clanton, Mississippi, vertreten. Hauptseite Themenportale Zufälliger Artikel.

The interviewed jurors clearly recognized that the experts were selected within an adversary process. Moreover, the research shows that in deliberations jurors combine their individual perspectives on the evidence and debate its relative merits before arriving at a verdict.

In the United States, juries are sometimes called on, when asked to do so by a judge in the jury instructions, to make factual findings on particular issues.

This may include, for example, aggravating circumstances which will be used to elevate the defendant's sentence if the defendant is convicted.

This practice was required in all death penalty cases in Blakely v. Washington , U. A similar Sixth Amendment argument in Apprendi v. New Jersey , U.

Many U. For example, a judge might seat an advisory jury to guide the judge in awarding non-economic damages such as "pain and suffering" damages in a case where there is no right to a jury trial, such as depending on state law a case involving "equitable" rather than "legal" claims.

In Canada, juries are also allowed to make suggestions for sentencing periods at the time of sentencing. The suggestions of the jury are presented before the judge by the Crown prosecutor s before the sentence is handed down.

In a small number of U. However, this is not the practice in most other legal systems based on the English tradition, in which judges retain sole responsibility for deciding sentences according to law.

The exception is the award of damages in English law libel cases, although a judge is now obliged to make a recommendation to the jury as to the appropriate amount.

In legal systems based on English tradition, findings of fact by a jury, and jury conclusions that could be supported by jury findings of fact even if the specific factual basis for the verdict is not known are entitled to great deference on appeal.

In other legal systems, it is generally possible for an appellate court to reconsider both findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the trial court, and in those systems, evidence may be presented to appellate courts in what amounts to a trial de novo new trial of appealed findings of fact.

The finality of trial court findings of fact in legal systems based on the English tradition has a major impact on court procedure in these systems.

This makes it imperative that lawyers be highly prepared for trial because errors and misjudgments related to the presentation of evidence at trial to a jury cannot generally be corrected later on appeal, particularly in court systems based on the English tradition.

The higher the stakes, the more this is true. Surprises at trial are much more consequential in court systems based on the English tradition than they are in other legal systems [ citation needed ].

Jury nullification means deciding not to apply the law to the facts in a particular case by jury decision. In other words, it is "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, there was a series of such cases, starting in with the trial of the Quaker William Penn which asserted the de facto right, or at least power, of a jury to render a verdict contrary to the facts or law.

A good example is the case of one Carnegie of Finhaven who in accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law as it stood required the jury to render the verdict that the case had been "proven" and cause Carnegie of Finhaven to die for an accidental killing.

Instead, the jury asserted what is believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts and brought in the verdict of "not guilty".

This led to the development of the not proven verdict in Scots law. Today in the United States, juries are instructed by the judge to follow the judge's instructions concerning what is the law and to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.

Important past exercises of nullification include cases involving slavery see Fugitive Slave Act of , freedom of the press see John Peter Zenger , and freedom of religion see William Penn.

In United States v. Moylan , F. In Sparf v. Modern American jurisprudence is generally intolerant of the practice, and a juror can be removed from a case if the judge believes that the juror is aware of the power of nullification.

In the United Kingdom, a similar power exists, often called "jury equity". This enables a jury to reach a decision in direct contradiction with the law if they feel the law is unjust.

This can create a persuasive precedent for future cases, or render prosecutors reluctant to bring a charge — thus a jury has the power to influence the law.

The standard justification of jury equity is taken from the final few pages of Lord Devlin's book "Trial by Jury".

Devlin explained jury equity through two now-famous metaphors: that the jury is "the lamp that shows that freedom lives" and that it is a "little parliament".

Perhaps the best example of modern-day jury equity in England and Wales was the acquittal of Clive Ponting , on a charge of revealing secret information, under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act in Ponting's defense was that the revelation was in the public interest.

The trial judge directed the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is" — effectively a direction to the jury to convict.

Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Another example is the acquittal in of Michael Randle and Pat Pottle , who confessed in open court to charges of springing the Soviet spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs Prison and smuggling him to East Germany in Pottle successfully appealed to the jury to disregard the judge's instruction that they consider only whether the defendants were guilty in law, and assert a jury's ancient right to throw out a politically motivated prosecution, in this case, compounded by its cynical untimeliness.

In Scotland with a separate legal system from that of England and Wales although technically the "not guilty" verdict was originally a form of jury nullification, over time the interpretation has changed so that now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal one when a jury is not persuaded of guilt and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt.

It is not a trivial distinction since any shift in the burden of proof is a significant change which undermines the safeguard for the citizen.

Besides petit juries for jury trials and grand juries for issuing indictments, juries are sometimes used in non-legal or quasi-legal contexts.

Blue ribbon juries attend to civic matters as an ad-hoc body in the executive branch of a government. Outside government, a jury or panel of judges may make determinations in competition , such as at a wine tasting , art exhibition , talent contest, or reality game show.

These types of contests are juried competitions. Blue ribbon juries are juries selected from prominent, well-educated citizens, sometimes to investigate a particular problem such as civic corruption.

Blue ribbon juries cannot be used in real trials, which require constitutional safeguards to produce a jury of one's peers.

The blue-ribbon jury is intended to overcome the problems of ordinary juries in interpreting complex technical or commercial questions.

In the United States, blue-ribbon juries were provided for by statutes, the terms varying by jurisdiction. Each state may determine the extent to which the use of a jury is used.

The use of a jury is optional for civil trials in any Australian state. Some States provide exceptions such as majority to-1 or to-2 verdicts where a jury cannot otherwise reach a verdict.

The Constitution of Australia provides in section 80 that 'the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury'.

Where a trial 'on indictment' has been prescribed, it is an essential element that it be found by a unanimous verdict of guilty by 12 lay members of the public.

This requirement stems from the historical meaning of 'jury' at the time that the Constitution was written and is in principle thus an integral element of trial by jury.

The Belgian Constitution provides that all cases involving the most serious crimes be judged by juries. As a safeguard against libel cases, press crimes can also only be tried by a jury.

Racism is excluded from this safeguard. Twelve jurors decide by a qualified majority of two-thirds whether the defendant is guilty or not.

A tied vote result in 'not guilty'; a '7 guilty — 5 not guilty' vote is transferred to the 3 professional judges who can, by unanimity, reverse the majority to 'not guilty'.

The sentence is delivered by a majority of the 12 jurors and the 3 professional judges. The procedural codification has been altered to meet the demands formulated by 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 suicide instigation, be judged by juries.

Seven jurors vote in secret to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not, and decisions are taken by the majority. Manslaughter and other crimes in which the killing was committed without intent, however, are judged by a professional judge instead.

In Canada , juries are used for some criminal trials but not others. For most indictable offences , the accused person can elect to be tried by either a judge alone or a judge and jury.

Juries do not make a recommendation as to the length of sentence, except for parole ineligibility for second-degree murder but the judge is not bound by the jury's recommendation, and the jury is not required to make a recommendation.

Jury selection is in accordance with specific criteria. Prospective jurors may only be asked certain questions, selected for direct pertinence to impartiality or other relevant matters.

Any other questions must be approved by the judge. A jury in a criminal trial is initially composed of 12 jurors.

The trial judge has the discretion to direct that one or two alternate jurors also be appointed. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that anyone tried for an offense that has a maximum sentence of five or more years has the right to be tried by a jury except for an offence under military law.

The names of jurors are protected by a publication ban. There is a specific criminal offense for disclosing anything that takes place during jury deliberations.

Juries are infrequently used in civil trials in Canada. There are no civil juries in the courts of the Province of Quebec, nor in the Federal Court.

Three professional judges sit alongside six jurors in first instance proceedings or nine in appeal proceedings.

Before , there were nine or twelve jurors, but this was reduced to cut spending. A two-thirds majority is needed in order to convict the defendant.

During these procedures, judges and jurors have equal positions on questions of fact, while judges decide on questions of procedure.

Judges and jurors also have equal positions on sentencing. Trial by jury was introduced in most German states after the revolutionary events of However, it remained controversial; and, early in the 20th century, there were moves to abolish it.

In , the Social Democrats called for the reinstitution of the jury; a special meeting of the German Bar demanded revocation of the decrees, but "on the whole the abolition of the jury caused little commotion".

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

Article 86 of the Hong Kong Basic Law assures the practice of jury trials. Criminal cases in the High Court and some civil cases are tried by a jury in Hong Kong.

There is no jury in the District Court. In addition, from time to time, the Coroner's Court may summon a jury to decide the cause of death in an inquest.

Criminal cases are normally tried by a 7-person jury and sometimes, at the discretion of the court, a 9-person jury. Nevertheless, the Jury Ordinance requires that a jury in any proceedings should be composed of at least 5 jurors.

In the case Chiang Lily v. Jury trials were abolished in most Indian courts by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nanavati Case was not the last Jury trial in India.

West Bengal had Jury trials as late as The Law Commission recommended their abolition in in its 14th Report.

They were retained in a discreet manner for Parsi divorce courts, wherein a panel of members called 'delegates' are randomly selected from the community to decide the fact of the case.

Parsi divorce law is governed by 'The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, ' as amended in , [56] and is a mixture of the Panchayat legal system and jury process.

The law in Ireland is historically based on English common law and had a similar jury system. Article 38 of the Constitution of Ireland mandates trial by jury for criminal offences, with exceptions for minor offences , military tribunals, and where "the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order".

The principal statute regulating the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the Juries Act as amended by the Civil Law Miscellaneous Provisions Act Normally consisting of twelve persons, juries are selected from a jury panel which is picked at random by the county registrar from the electoral register.

It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In Italy , a Civil law jurisdiction, untrained judges are present only in the Corte d'Assise , where two career magistrates are supported by six so-called Lay Judges , who are raffled from the registrar of voters.

In the Corte d'Assise, decisions concerning both fact and law matters are taken by the stipendiary judges and "Lay Judges" together at a special meeting behind closed doors, named Camera di Consiglio "Counsel Chamber" , and the Court is subsequently required to publish written explanations of its decisions within 90 days from the verdict.

Errors of law or inconsistencies in the explanation of a decision can and usually will lead to the annulment of the decision. A Court d'Assise and a Court d' Assise d'Appello decides on a majority of votes, and therefore predominantly on the votes of the lay judges, who are a majority of six to two, but in fact lay judges, who are not trained to write such explanation and must rely on one or the other stipendiary judge to do it, are effectively prevented from overruling both of them.

The Corte d'Assise has jurisdiction to try crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 24 years in prison or life imprisonment, and other serious crimes; felonies that fall under its jurisdiction include terrorism , murder, manslaughter, severe attempts against State personalities, as well as some matters of law requiring ethical and professional evaluations ex.

Penalties imposed by the court can include life sentences. Juries are used in trials for all trials involving Category 4 offences such as treason, murder and manslaughter, although in exceptional circumstances a judge-alone trial may be ordered.

At the option of the defendant, juries may be used in trials involving Category 3 offences, that is offences where the maximum penalty available is two years imprisonment or greater.

In civil cases, juries are only used in cases of defamation, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Juries must initially try to reach a unanimous verdict, but if one cannot be reached in a reasonable timeframe, the judge may accept a majority verdict of all-but-one i.

Juries existed in Norway as early as the year , and perhaps even earlier. They brought the jury system to England and Scotland.

Juries were phased out as late as the 17th century, when Norway's central government was in Copenhagen , Denmark. Though Norway and Denmark had different legal systems throughout their personal union — , and later under the governmental union — , there was attempt to harmonize the legal systems of the two countries.

Even if juries were abolished, the layman continued to play an important role in the legal system throughout in Norway.

The jury was reintroduced in , and was then solely used in criminal cases on the second tier of the three-tier Norwegian court system " Lagmannsretten ".

The jury consisted of 10 people, and had to reach a majority verdict consisting of seven or more of the jurors. In a sense, the concept of being judged by one's peers existed on both the first and second tier of the Norwegian court system: In Tingretten , one judge and two lay judges preside, and in Lagmannsretten two judges and five lay judges preside.

The lay judges do not hold any legal qualification, and represent the peers of the person on trial, as members of the general public.

As a guarantee against any abuse of power by the educated elite, the number of lay judges always exceeds the number of appointed judges. In the Supreme Court , only trained lawyers are seated.

The right to a jury trial is provided by Constitution of Russian Federation but for criminal cases only and in the procedure defined by law. In , the anti-state criminal cases treason, espionage, armed rebellion, sabotage, mass riot, creating an illegal paramilitary group, forcible seizure of power, terrorism were removed from the jurisdiction of the jury trial.

A juror must be 25 years old, legally competent, and without a criminal record. Spain has no strong tradition of using juries.

However, there is some mentions in the Bayonne Statute. Later, Article of the Spanish Constitution of allowed the Cortes to pass legislation if they felt that over the time it was needed to distinguish between "judges of law" and "judges of facts".

Such legislation however was never enacted. Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution of while proclamating the freedom of the people to publicate written contents without previous censorship according to the laws also provided that "press crimes" could only be tried by juries.

This meant that a grand jury would need to indict, and a petit jury would need to convict. Juries were later abolished in , but were later restored in for all "political crimes" and "those common crimes the law may deem appropriate to be so tried by a jury".

A Law concerning the Jury entered into force on January 1, and lasted until , where juries were again disbanded with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

The actual Constitution of permits the Cortes Generales to pass legislation allowing juries in criminal trials.

The provision is arguably somewhat vague: "Article — Citizens may engage in popular action and participate in the administration of justice through the institution of the Jury, in the manner and with respect to those criminal trials as may be determined by law, as well as in customary and traditional courts.

Jury trials can only happen in the criminal jurisdiction and it is not a choice of the defendant to be tried by jury, or by a single judge or a panel of judges.

For all other crimes, a single judge or a panel of judges will decide both on facts and the law. Spanish juries are composed of 9 citizens and a professional Judge.

Juries decide on facts and whether to convict or acquit the defendant. In case of conviction they can also make recommendations such as if the defendant should be pardoned if they asked to, or if they think the defendant could be released on parole, etc.

One of the first jury trial cases was that of Mikel Otegi who was tried in for the murder of two police officers. After a confused [ clarification needed ] trial, five jury members of a total of nine voted to acquit and the judge ordered the accused set free.

This verdict shocked the nation. In press libel cases and other cases concerning offenses against freedom of the press, the question of whether or not the printed material falls outside permissible limits is submitted to a jury of 9 members which provides a pre-screening before the case is ruled on by normal courts.

In these cases 6 out of 9 jurors must find against the defendant, and may not be overruled in cases of acquittal. Sweden has no tradition of using juries in most types of criminal or civil trial.

The sole exception, since , is in cases involving freedom of the press, prosecuted under Chapter 7 of the Freedom of the Press Act, part of Sweden's constitution.

These cases are tried in district courts first tier courts by a jury of nine laymen. The jury in press freedom cases rules only on the facts of the case and the question of guilt or innocence.

The trial judge may overrule a jury's guilty verdict, but may not overrule an acquittal. A conviction requires a majority verdict of 6—3. Sentencing is the sole prerogative of judges.

Jury members must be Swedish citizens and resident in the county in which the case is being heard. They must be of sound judgement and known for their independence and integrity.

Combined, they should represent a range of social groups and opinions, as well as all parts of the county. It is the county council that have the responsibility to appoints juries for a tenure of four years under which they may serve in multiple cases.

The appointed jurymen are divided into two groups, in most counties the first with sixteen members and the second with eight.

From this pool of available jurymen the court hears and excludes those with conflicts of interest in the case, after which the defendants and plaintiffs have the right to exclude a number of members, varying by county and group.

The final jury is then randomly selected by drawing of lots. Juries are not used in other criminal and civil cases. For most other cases in the first and second tier courts lay judges sit alongside professional judges.

Lay judges participate in deciding both the facts of the case and sentencing. Lay judges are appointed by local authorities, or in practice by the political parties represented on the authorities.

In England and Wales jury trials are used for criminal cases, requiring 12 jurors between the ages of 18 and 75 , although the trial may continue with as few as 9.

The right to a jury trial has been enshrined in English law since Magna Carta in , and is most common in serious cases, although the defendant can insist on a jury trial for most criminal cases.

Jury trials in complex fraud cases have been described by some members and appointees of the Labour Party as expensive and time-consuming.

Jury trials are also available for some few areas of civil law for example defamation cases and those involving police conduct ; these also require 12 jurors 9 in the County Court.

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland , jury trials were suspended and trials took place before Diplock Courts. These were essentially trials before judges only.

This was to combat the intimidation of juries [89]. Scottish trials are based on an adversarial approach.

First the prosecution leads evidence from witnesses and after each witness the defence has an opportunity to cross examine.

Following the Prosecution case, the defence may move a motion of no case to answer if the worst the prosecution has been able to lead in evidence would be insufficient to convict of any crime.

If there remains a case to answer, the defence leads evidence from witnesses in an attempt to refute previous evidence led by the prosecution, with cross examination being permitted after each witness.

Once both prosecution and defence have concluded leading evidence, the case goes to summing up where firstly the prosecution and then the defence get to sum up their case based on the evidence that has been heard.

The jury is given guidance on points of law and then sent out to consider its verdict. Juries are composed of fifteen residents. In criminal law in federal courts and a minority of state court systems of the United States, a grand jury is convened to hear only testimony and evidence to determine whether there is a sufficient basis for deciding to indict the defendant and proceed toward trial.

In each court district where a grand jury is required, a group of 16—23 citizens holds an inquiry on criminal complaints brought by the prosecutor to decide whether a trial is warranted based on the standard that probable cause exists that a crime was committed , in which case an indictment is issued.

In jurisdictions where the size of a jury varies, in general the size of juries tends to be larger if the crime alleged is more serious. If a grand jury rejects a proposed indictment the grand jury's action is known as a "no bill.

This is so because a grand jury cannot convict a defendant. It can only decide to indict the defendant and proceed forward toward trial.

Grand juries vote to indict in the overwhelming majority of cases, and prosecutors are not prohibited from presenting the same case to a new grand jury if a "no bill" was returned by a previous grand jury.

A typical grand jury considers a new criminal case every fifteen minutes. In some jurisdictions, in addition to indicting persons for crimes, a grand jury may also issue reports on matters that they investigate apart from the criminal indictments, particularly when the grand jury investigation involves a public scandal.

Historically, grand juries were sometimes used in American law to serve a purpose similar to an investigatory commission.

Constitution and the Sixth Amendment require that criminal cases be tried by a jury. However, the Fourteenth Amendment extended this mandate to the states.

Although the Constitution originally did not require a jury for civil cases, this led to an uproar which was followed by adoption of the Seventh Amendment , which requires a civil jury in cases where the value in dispute is greater than twenty dollars.

Under the law of many states, jury trials are not allowed in small claims cases. The civil jury in the United States is a defining element of the process by which personal injury trials are handled.

In practice, even though the defendant in a criminal action is entitled to a trial by jury, most criminal actions in the U.

In the Supreme Court held that the jury must be composed of at least twelve persons, although this was not necessarily extended to state civil jury trials.

There is controversy over smaller juries, with proponents arguing that they are more efficient and opponents arguing that they lead to fluctuating verdicts.

Traditionally the removal of jurors based on a peremptory challenge required no justification or explanation, but the tradition has been changed by the Supreme Court where the reason for the peremptory challenge was the race of the potential juror.

Since the s " scientific jury selection " has become popular. Unanimous jury verdicts have been standard in US American law. This requirement was upheld by the Supreme Court in , but the standard was relaxed in in two criminal cases.

As of over thirty states had laws allowing less than unanimity in civil cases, but, until , Oregon and Louisiana were the only states which have laws allowing less than unanimous jury verdicts for criminal cases these laws were overturned in Ramos v.

The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of fact and guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge.

This practice was confirmed by rulings of the U. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona , [96] which found Arizona's practice of having the judge decide whether aggravating factors exist to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty, to be unconstitutional, and reserving the determination of whether the aggravating factors exist to be decided by the jury.

However, in some states such as Alabama and Florida , the ultimate decision on the punishment is made by the judge, and the jury gives only a non-binding recommendation.

The judge can impose the death penalty even if the jury recommends life without parole. There is no set format for jury deliberations, and the jury takes a period of time to settle into discussing the evidence and deciding on guilt and any other facts the judge instructs them to determine.

Deliberation is done by the jury only, with none of the lawyers, the judge, or the defendant present. The first step will typically be to find out the initial feeling or reaction of the jurors to the case, which may be by a show of hands, or via secret ballot.

The jury will then attempt to arrive at a consensus verdict. The discussion usually helps to identify jurors' views to see whether a consensus will emerge as well as areas that bear further discussion.

Points often arise that were not specifically discussed during the trial. The result of these discussions is that in most cases the jury comes to a unanimous decision and a verdict is thus achieved.

In some states and under circumstances, the decision need not be unanimous. In a few states and in death penalty cases, depending upon the law, the trial jury, or sometimes a separate jury, may determine whether the death penalty is appropriate in "capital" murder cases.

Usually, sentencing is handled by the judge at a separate hearing. The judge may but does not always follow the recommendations of the jury when deciding on a sentence.

Jury sentencing is the practice of having juries decide what penalties to give those who have been convicted of criminal offenses.

The practice of jury sentencing began in Virginia in the 18th century and spread westward to other states that were influenced by Virginia-trained lawyers.

Alabama , Georgia , [] Indiana , Illinois , [] Mississippi , Montana , [] Tennessee , [] and West Virginia had jury sentencing in times past, but then abandoned it.

Canadian juries have long had the option to recommend mercy, leniency, or clemency , and the Criminal Code required judges to give a jury instruction , following a verdict convicting a defendant of capital murder , soliciting a recommendation as to whether he should be granted clemency.

When capital punishment in Canada was abolished in , as part of the same raft of reforms, the Criminal Code was also amended to grant juries the ability to recommend periods of parole ineligibility immediately following a guilty verdict in second-degree murder cases; however, these recommendations are usually ignored, based on the idea that judges are better-informed about relevant facts and sentencing jurisprudence and, unlike the jury, permitted to give reasons for their judgments.

Proponents of jury sentencing argue that since sentencing involves fact-finding a task traditionally within the purview of juries , and since the original intent of the founders was to have juries check judges' power, it is the proper role of juries to participate in sentencing.

The impetus for introducing jury sentencing was that in the late 18th century, punishment options expanded beyond shaming sanctions and the mandatory death penalty and came to include various ranges and modes of imprisonment, creating more room for case-by-case decisionmaking to which juries were thought to be well-suited.

Virginia was the first state to adopt jury sentencing. The state's first constitution was enacted in , and shortly thereafter, in , Thomas Jefferson proposed to the Virginia General Assembly a revised criminal code that would have eliminated pardons and benefit of clergy , abolished capital punishment for most offenses, and allowed juries to decide punishments when the penalty was discretionary.

This bill failed, however, both in and , after James Madison had reintroduced it while Jefferson was in France. Sentencing by jury was, however, successfully enacted in Virginia's penal code, which like the bill replaced capital punishment with terms of imprisonment for most felony offenses.

Kentucky adopted a penal reform bill introduced by John Breckenridge that implemented sentencing by jury in While in Virginia, magistrates continued to have misdemeanor sentencing power possibly because of the political influence of magistrates who served in the General Assembly , in Kentucky, this power was given to juries.

Kentucky juries tried and sentenced slaves and free blacks, and even decided cases involving prison discipline , imposing punishments such as flagellation or solitary confinement for infractions.

In contrast, northern states such as Pennsylvania , Maryland , New Jersey , and New York allowed judges to determine penalties, with Pennsylvania also allowing judges to pardon prisoners who, in their view, had evidenced sincere reformation.

One hypothesis is that Virginia opted for jury sentencing because Federalists like George Keith Taylor distrusted the Republican district court judges; while in Pennsylvania, the Constitutionalists sought over the objections of Republicans to put sentencing power in the hands of the judges because the bench was populated by Constitutionalists.

North Carolina , South Carolina , and Florida , which did not establish penitentiaries until after the American Civil War , also left sentencing to judges' discretion.

The adoption of jury sentencing happened at the same time that the movement for an elective judiciary gathered speed, with at least four states, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, and North Dakota switching to judicial elections around the same time that they adopted jury sentencing.

Both reforms may have been due to a mistrust of unelected judges. During the ten years of the Republic of Texas , judges determined sentences.

The change to jury determination of the penalty was brought about by one of the first laws passed by the first legislature of the State of Texas in , which empowered the jury to sentence the defendant in all criminal cases except capital cases and cases for which punishment was fixed by law.

Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia adopted jury sentencing later in the 19th century. The U. Supreme Court ruling in Sparf v.

United States reflected growing concern that letting juries decide whether or how the law should be applied in particular cases could be detrimental to the rule of law.

By , the role of juries in determining penalties was being eroded by the professionalization of sentencing, as many states passed laws that created parole and probation systems.

These systems were based on a consequentialist philosophy that it would be more useful for society to focus on finding ways to prevent future crime than on fixing blame for crime that had occurred in the past.

Criminal behavior was viewed as the result of such factors as heredity , social circumstances, random breeding, and Darwinian struggle , rather than an abuse of divinely-granted free will.

Psychology and sociology would determine the causes of crime and what social reforms and treatment programs would correct them.

Probation officers gathered and analyzed information about the defendant's character and prepared a presentence report that served as the basis for the ultimate sentence.

Probation provided opportunities for treatment in the community for juveniles and adults. In the prison system, parole commissioners , trained in penology and insulated from political pressures, determined when prisoners had been rehabilitated and could be reintegrated into society.

It would, therefore, not be possible for juries to sentence the defendant at the time of conviction, if the jury needed to rely on a presentence report in making its sentencing decision; rather, the jury would need to be broken up and reassembled later, which could be unworkable if the delay between verdict and sentencing is substantial.

Furthermore, jury control procedures typically provide that during the trial, information about the defendant's background that is not relevant to the issue of guilt is not to be presented in the presence of the jury, lest it prejudice him.

The assumptions that presentence reports would be more informative than presentence hearings, and that training and experience were required to intelligently consider the data and assess sanctions, militated in favor of having a judge rather than a jury do the sentencing.

Supreme Court held that alleged juvenile delinquents have no right to a jury trial, with Harry Blackmun and three other Justices opining that an adversarial system would put an end to the prospect of an intimate, informal protective proceeding focused on rehabilitation.

Georgia and Tennessee both had periods from —, and from —, respectively in which they briefly abandoned jury sentencing while experimenting with indeterminate sentencing.

By , fourteen states gave juries sentencing powers in non-capital cases, although by , that number had dropped to thirteen.

By the s and s, determinate sentencing , a new intellectual current that repudiated the rehabilitative model with its focus on using mathematical models and grids to determine sentences, had made inroads, making jury sentencing seem like more of an anachronism.

Oklahoma abolished jury sentencing but reinstated it in In Canada, a faint hope clause formerly allowed a jury to be empanelled to consider whether an offender's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, but this was repealed in According to some commentators, the time is ripe for a revival of jury sentencing, because flaws in the determinate sentencing systems are becoming increasingly apparent.

Lawmakers drafting legislation such as the Sentencing Reform Act have had difficulty mustering the political will to make clear choices among opposing moral and ideological viewpoints, instead delegating these decisions to agencies that lack the representativeness and democratic origin of legislatures.

Prosecutors have routinely circumvented the sentencing guidelines through their charging and plea bargaining decisions, creating a new set of disparities, despite the intent of the guidelines to curtail disparities.

Also, some juries have been acquitting guilty defendants to save them from what they regard as overly harsh mandatory minimum sentences , such as those imposed by the Rockefeller Drug Laws and California's three-strikes law.

There have been movements to abolish sentencing commissions and guideline systems and inform jurors of their right to nullify.

Decisions like Apprendi v. New Jersey requiring a jury, rather than a judge, to find any facts that would increase a defendant's maximum sentence and Ring v.

Arizona requiring a jury, rather than a judge, to find whether there are aggravating factors justifying capital punishment have also signaled a willingness by the judiciary to expand the role of the jury in the legal process.

Jury sentencing has been seen as a way to in many cases render moot the questions raised by Apprendi and related cases such as Blakely v.

Washington and United States v. Booker [] about the differences between elements of an offense and sentencing factors by letting the jury decide all the facts.

Alabama and Graham v. Florida banning mandatory life imprisonment without parole, and life imprisonment without parole in non-homicide cases, respectively, for juveniles, as contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution 's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment also raise a question of whether the Supreme Court logically should allow only a jury, rather than a judge, to determine a juvenile should receive such a sentence, given the parallels between adult capital punishment case law and juvenile life imprisonment with parole case law.

In Virginia, under the act, capital punishment remained mandatory for first-degree murder , but the penalty for second-degree murder was any term between five and eighteen years in the penitentiary.

The act gave the court in murder cases the authority to "determine the degree of the crime, and to give sentence accordingly" when a defendant was "convicted by confession.

In Missouri, informing juries of sentences of defendants in similar cases or the sentences of co-participants in the crime on trial is strictly prohibited under the rules of evidence.

Kentucky courts have also held parole eligibility statistics inadmissible. Die unglaubliche Geschichte der Mrs. Die Chaotenclique St.

Emmet Walsh : Dr. Willard Tyrell 'W. Filme von Joel Schumacher. Namensräume Artikel Diskussion. Ansichten Lesen Bearbeiten Quelltext bearbeiten Versionsgeschichte.

Hauptseite Themenportale Zufälliger Artikel. Deutscher Titel. Die Jury. A Time to Kill. FSK Joel Schumacher. Akiva Goldsman. Nathanson , New Regency.

Besides petit juries for jury trials and grand juries for issuing indictments, juries are sometimes used in non-legal or quasi-legal contexts.

Blue ribbon juries attend to civic matters as an ad-hoc body in the executive branch of a government. Outside government, a jury or panel of judges may make determinations in competition , such as at a wine tasting , art exhibition , talent contest, or reality game show.

These types of contests are juried competitions. Blue ribbon juries are juries selected from prominent, well-educated citizens, sometimes to investigate a particular problem such as civic corruption.

Blue ribbon juries cannot be used in real trials, which require constitutional safeguards to produce a jury of one's peers. The blue-ribbon jury is intended to overcome the problems of ordinary juries in interpreting complex technical or commercial questions.

In the United States, blue-ribbon juries were provided for by statutes, the terms varying by jurisdiction. Each state may determine the extent to which the use of a jury is used.

The use of a jury is optional for civil trials in any Australian state. Some States provide exceptions such as majority to-1 or to-2 verdicts where a jury cannot otherwise reach a verdict.

The Constitution of Australia provides in section 80 that 'the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury'.

Where a trial 'on indictment' has been prescribed, it is an essential element that it be found by a unanimous verdict of guilty by 12 lay members of the public.

This requirement stems from the historical meaning of 'jury' at the time that the Constitution was written and is in principle thus an integral element of trial by jury.

The Belgian Constitution provides that all cases involving the most serious crimes be judged by juries.

As a safeguard against libel cases, press crimes can also only be tried by a jury. Racism is excluded from this safeguard. Twelve jurors decide by a qualified majority of two-thirds whether the defendant is guilty or not.

A tied vote result in 'not guilty'; a '7 guilty — 5 not guilty' vote is transferred to the 3 professional judges who can, by unanimity, reverse the majority to 'not guilty'.

The sentence is delivered by a majority of the 12 jurors and the 3 professional judges. The procedural codification has been altered to meet the demands formulated by 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 suicide instigation, be judged by juries.

Seven jurors vote in secret to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not, and decisions are taken by the majority.

Manslaughter and other crimes in which the killing was committed without intent, however, are judged by a professional judge instead.

In Canada , juries are used for some criminal trials but not others. For most indictable offences , the accused person can elect to be tried by either a judge alone or a judge and jury.

Juries do not make a recommendation as to the length of sentence, except for parole ineligibility for second-degree murder but the judge is not bound by the jury's recommendation, and the jury is not required to make a recommendation.

Jury selection is in accordance with specific criteria. Prospective jurors may only be asked certain questions, selected for direct pertinence to impartiality or other relevant matters.

Any other questions must be approved by the judge. A jury in a criminal trial is initially composed of 12 jurors. The trial judge has the discretion to direct that one or two alternate jurors also be appointed.

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

The names of jurors are protected by a publication ban. There is a specific criminal offense for disclosing anything that takes place during jury deliberations.

Juries are infrequently used in civil trials in Canada. There are no civil juries in the courts of the Province of Quebec, nor in the Federal Court.

Three professional judges sit alongside six jurors in first instance proceedings or nine in appeal proceedings. Before , there were nine or twelve jurors, but this was reduced to cut spending.

A two-thirds majority is needed in order to convict the defendant. During these procedures, judges and jurors have equal positions on questions of fact, while judges decide on questions of procedure.

Judges and jurors also have equal positions on sentencing. Trial by jury was introduced in most German states after the revolutionary events of However, it remained controversial; and, early in the 20th century, there were moves to abolish it.

In , the Social Democrats called for the reinstitution of the jury; a special meeting of the German Bar demanded revocation of the decrees, but "on the whole the abolition of the jury caused little commotion".

In some civil cases, such as commercial law or patent law, there are also lay judges, who have to meet certain criteria e. Article 86 of the Hong Kong Basic Law assures the practice of jury trials.

Criminal cases in the High Court and some civil cases are tried by a jury in Hong Kong. There is no jury in the District Court.

In addition, from time to time, the Coroner's Court may summon a jury to decide the cause of death in an inquest.

Criminal cases are normally tried by a 7-person jury and sometimes, at the discretion of the court, a 9-person jury. Nevertheless, the Jury Ordinance requires that a jury in any proceedings should be composed of at least 5 jurors.

In the case Chiang Lily v. Jury trials were abolished in most Indian courts by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Nanavati Case was not the last Jury trial in India. West Bengal had Jury trials as late as The Law Commission recommended their abolition in in its 14th Report.

They were retained in a discreet manner for Parsi divorce courts, wherein a panel of members called 'delegates' are randomly selected from the community to decide the fact of the case.

Parsi divorce law is governed by 'The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, ' as amended in , [56] and is a mixture of the Panchayat legal system and jury process.

The law in Ireland is historically based on English common law and had a similar jury system. Article 38 of the Constitution of Ireland mandates trial by jury for criminal offences, with exceptions for minor offences , military tribunals, and where "the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order".

The principal statute regulating the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the Juries Act as amended by the Civil Law Miscellaneous Provisions Act Normally consisting of twelve persons, juries are selected from a jury panel which is picked at random by the county registrar from the electoral register.

It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In Italy , a Civil law jurisdiction, untrained judges are present only in the Corte d'Assise , where two career magistrates are supported by six so-called Lay Judges , who are raffled from the registrar of voters.

In the Corte d'Assise, decisions concerning both fact and law matters are taken by the stipendiary judges and "Lay Judges" together at a special meeting behind closed doors, named Camera di Consiglio "Counsel Chamber" , and the Court is subsequently required to publish written explanations of its decisions within 90 days from the verdict.

Errors of law or inconsistencies in the explanation of a decision can and usually will lead to the annulment of the decision.

A Court d'Assise and a Court d' Assise d'Appello decides on a majority of votes, and therefore predominantly on the votes of the lay judges, who are a majority of six to two, but in fact lay judges, who are not trained to write such explanation and must rely on one or the other stipendiary judge to do it, are effectively prevented from overruling both of them.

The Corte d'Assise has jurisdiction to try crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 24 years in prison or life imprisonment, and other serious crimes; felonies that fall under its jurisdiction include terrorism , murder, manslaughter, severe attempts against State personalities, as well as some matters of law requiring ethical and professional evaluations ex.

Penalties imposed by the court can include life sentences. Juries are used in trials for all trials involving Category 4 offences such as treason, murder and manslaughter, although in exceptional circumstances a judge-alone trial may be ordered.

At the option of the defendant, juries may be used in trials involving Category 3 offences, that is offences where the maximum penalty available is two years imprisonment or greater.

In civil cases, juries are only used in cases of defamation, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Juries must initially try to reach a unanimous verdict, but if one cannot be reached in a reasonable timeframe, the judge may accept a majority verdict of all-but-one i.

Juries existed in Norway as early as the year , and perhaps even earlier. They brought the jury system to England and Scotland.

Juries were phased out as late as the 17th century, when Norway's central government was in Copenhagen , Denmark. Though Norway and Denmark had different legal systems throughout their personal union — , and later under the governmental union — , there was attempt to harmonize the legal systems of the two countries.

Even if juries were abolished, the layman continued to play an important role in the legal system throughout in Norway. The jury was reintroduced in , and was then solely used in criminal cases on the second tier of the three-tier Norwegian court system " Lagmannsretten ".

The jury consisted of 10 people, and had to reach a majority verdict consisting of seven or more of the jurors. In a sense, the concept of being judged by one's peers existed on both the first and second tier of the Norwegian court system: In Tingretten , one judge and two lay judges preside, and in Lagmannsretten two judges and five lay judges preside.

The lay judges do not hold any legal qualification, and represent the peers of the person on trial, as members of the general public.

As a guarantee against any abuse of power by the educated elite, the number of lay judges always exceeds the number of appointed judges.

In the Supreme Court , only trained lawyers are seated. The right to a jury trial is provided by Constitution of Russian Federation but for criminal cases only and in the procedure defined by law.

In , the anti-state criminal cases treason, espionage, armed rebellion, sabotage, mass riot, creating an illegal paramilitary group, forcible seizure of power, terrorism were removed from the jurisdiction of the jury trial.

A juror must be 25 years old, legally competent, and without a criminal record. Spain has no strong tradition of using juries.

However, there is some mentions in the Bayonne Statute. Later, Article of the Spanish Constitution of allowed the Cortes to pass legislation if they felt that over the time it was needed to distinguish between "judges of law" and "judges of facts".

Such legislation however was never enacted. Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution of while proclamating the freedom of the people to publicate written contents without previous censorship according to the laws also provided that "press crimes" could only be tried by juries.

This meant that a grand jury would need to indict, and a petit jury would need to convict. Juries were later abolished in , but were later restored in for all "political crimes" and "those common crimes the law may deem appropriate to be so tried by a jury".

A Law concerning the Jury entered into force on January 1, and lasted until , where juries were again disbanded with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

The actual Constitution of permits the Cortes Generales to pass legislation allowing juries in criminal trials. The provision is arguably somewhat vague: "Article — Citizens may engage in popular action and participate in the administration of justice through the institution of the Jury, in the manner and with respect to those criminal trials as may be determined by law, as well as in customary and traditional courts.

Jury trials can only happen in the criminal jurisdiction and it is not a choice of the defendant to be tried by jury, or by a single judge or a panel of judges.

For all other crimes, a single judge or a panel of judges will decide both on facts and the law. Spanish juries are composed of 9 citizens and a professional Judge.

Juries decide on facts and whether to convict or acquit the defendant. In case of conviction they can also make recommendations such as if the defendant should be pardoned if they asked to, or if they think the defendant could be released on parole, etc.

One of the first jury trial cases was that of Mikel Otegi who was tried in for the murder of two police officers. After a confused [ clarification needed ] trial, five jury members of a total of nine voted to acquit and the judge ordered the accused set free.

This verdict shocked the nation. In press libel cases and other cases concerning offenses against freedom of the press, the question of whether or not the printed material falls outside permissible limits is submitted to a jury of 9 members which provides a pre-screening before the case is ruled on by normal courts.

In these cases 6 out of 9 jurors must find against the defendant, and may not be overruled in cases of acquittal.

Sweden has no tradition of using juries in most types of criminal or civil trial. The sole exception, since , is in cases involving freedom of the press, prosecuted under Chapter 7 of the Freedom of the Press Act, part of Sweden's constitution.

These cases are tried in district courts first tier courts by a jury of nine laymen. The jury in press freedom cases rules only on the facts of the case and the question of guilt or innocence.

The trial judge may overrule a jury's guilty verdict, but may not overrule an acquittal. A conviction requires a majority verdict of 6—3. Sentencing is the sole prerogative of judges.

Jury members must be Swedish citizens and resident in the county in which the case is being heard. They must be of sound judgement and known for their independence and integrity.

Combined, they should represent a range of social groups and opinions, as well as all parts of the county. It is the county council that have the responsibility to appoints juries for a tenure of four years under which they may serve in multiple cases.

The appointed jurymen are divided into two groups, in most counties the first with sixteen members and the second with eight. From this pool of available jurymen the court hears and excludes those with conflicts of interest in the case, after which the defendants and plaintiffs have the right to exclude a number of members, varying by county and group.

The final jury is then randomly selected by drawing of lots. Juries are not used in other criminal and civil cases. For most other cases in the first and second tier courts lay judges sit alongside professional judges.

Lay judges participate in deciding both the facts of the case and sentencing. Lay judges are appointed by local authorities, or in practice by the political parties represented on the authorities.

In England and Wales jury trials are used for criminal cases, requiring 12 jurors between the ages of 18 and 75 , although the trial may continue with as few as 9.

The right to a jury trial has been enshrined in English law since Magna Carta in , and is most common in serious cases, although the defendant can insist on a jury trial for most criminal cases.

Jury trials in complex fraud cases have been described by some members and appointees of the Labour Party as expensive and time-consuming. Jury trials are also available for some few areas of civil law for example defamation cases and those involving police conduct ; these also require 12 jurors 9 in the County Court.

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland , jury trials were suspended and trials took place before Diplock Courts.

These were essentially trials before judges only. This was to combat the intimidation of juries [89]. Scottish trials are based on an adversarial approach.

First the prosecution leads evidence from witnesses and after each witness the defence has an opportunity to cross examine. Following the Prosecution case, the defence may move a motion of no case to answer if the worst the prosecution has been able to lead in evidence would be insufficient to convict of any crime.

If there remains a case to answer, the defence leads evidence from witnesses in an attempt to refute previous evidence led by the prosecution, with cross examination being permitted after each witness.

Once both prosecution and defence have concluded leading evidence, the case goes to summing up where firstly the prosecution and then the defence get to sum up their case based on the evidence that has been heard.

The jury is given guidance on points of law and then sent out to consider its verdict. Juries are composed of fifteen residents. In criminal law in federal courts and a minority of state court systems of the United States, a grand jury is convened to hear only testimony and evidence to determine whether there is a sufficient basis for deciding to indict the defendant and proceed toward trial.

In each court district where a grand jury is required, a group of 16—23 citizens holds an inquiry on criminal complaints brought by the prosecutor to decide whether a trial is warranted based on the standard that probable cause exists that a crime was committed , in which case an indictment is issued.

In jurisdictions where the size of a jury varies, in general the size of juries tends to be larger if the crime alleged is more serious. If a grand jury rejects a proposed indictment the grand jury's action is known as a "no bill.

This is so because a grand jury cannot convict a defendant. It can only decide to indict the defendant and proceed forward toward trial.

Grand juries vote to indict in the overwhelming majority of cases, and prosecutors are not prohibited from presenting the same case to a new grand jury if a "no bill" was returned by a previous grand jury.

A typical grand jury considers a new criminal case every fifteen minutes. In some jurisdictions, in addition to indicting persons for crimes, a grand jury may also issue reports on matters that they investigate apart from the criminal indictments, particularly when the grand jury investigation involves a public scandal.

Historically, grand juries were sometimes used in American law to serve a purpose similar to an investigatory commission.

Constitution and the Sixth Amendment require that criminal cases be tried by a jury. However, the Fourteenth Amendment extended this mandate to the states.

Although the Constitution originally did not require a jury for civil cases, this led to an uproar which was followed by adoption of the Seventh Amendment , which requires a civil jury in cases where the value in dispute is greater than twenty dollars.

Under the law of many states, jury trials are not allowed in small claims cases. The civil jury in the United States is a defining element of the process by which personal injury trials are handled.

In practice, even though the defendant in a criminal action is entitled to a trial by jury, most criminal actions in the U.

In the Supreme Court held that the jury must be composed of at least twelve persons, although this was not necessarily extended to state civil jury trials.

There is controversy over smaller juries, with proponents arguing that they are more efficient and opponents arguing that they lead to fluctuating verdicts.

Traditionally the removal of jurors based on a peremptory challenge required no justification or explanation, but the tradition has been changed by the Supreme Court where the reason for the peremptory challenge was the race of the potential juror.

Since the s " scientific jury selection " has become popular. Unanimous jury verdicts have been standard in US American law.

This requirement was upheld by the Supreme Court in , but the standard was relaxed in in two criminal cases. As of over thirty states had laws allowing less than unanimity in civil cases, but, until , Oregon and Louisiana were the only states which have laws allowing less than unanimous jury verdicts for criminal cases these laws were overturned in Ramos v.

The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of fact and guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge.

This practice was confirmed by rulings of the U. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona , [96] which found Arizona's practice of having the judge decide whether aggravating factors exist to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty, to be unconstitutional, and reserving the determination of whether the aggravating factors exist to be decided by the jury.

However, in some states such as Alabama and Florida , the ultimate decision on the punishment is made by the judge, and the jury gives only a non-binding recommendation.

The judge can impose the death penalty even if the jury recommends life without parole. There is no set format for jury deliberations, and the jury takes a period of time to settle into discussing the evidence and deciding on guilt and any other facts the judge instructs them to determine.

Deliberation is done by the jury only, with none of the lawyers, the judge, or the defendant present. The first step will typically be to find out the initial feeling or reaction of the jurors to the case, which may be by a show of hands, or via secret ballot.

The jury will then attempt to arrive at a consensus verdict. The discussion usually helps to identify jurors' views to see whether a consensus will emerge as well as areas that bear further discussion.

Points often arise that were not specifically discussed during the trial. The result of these discussions is that in most cases the jury comes to a unanimous decision and a verdict is thus achieved.

In some states and under circumstances, the decision need not be unanimous. In a few states and in death penalty cases, depending upon the law, the trial jury, or sometimes a separate jury, may determine whether the death penalty is appropriate in "capital" murder cases.

Usually, sentencing is handled by the judge at a separate hearing. The judge may but does not always follow the recommendations of the jury when deciding on a sentence.

Jury sentencing is the practice of having juries decide what penalties to give those who have been convicted of criminal offenses.

The practice of jury sentencing began in Virginia in the 18th century and spread westward to other states that were influenced by Virginia-trained lawyers.

Alabama , Georgia , [] Indiana , Illinois , [] Mississippi , Montana , [] Tennessee , [] and West Virginia had jury sentencing in times past, but then abandoned it.

Canadian juries have long had the option to recommend mercy, leniency, or clemency , and the Criminal Code required judges to give a jury instruction , following a verdict convicting a defendant of capital murder , soliciting a recommendation as to whether he should be granted clemency.

When capital punishment in Canada was abolished in , as part of the same raft of reforms, the Criminal Code was also amended to grant juries the ability to recommend periods of parole ineligibility immediately following a guilty verdict in second-degree murder cases; however, these recommendations are usually ignored, based on the idea that judges are better-informed about relevant facts and sentencing jurisprudence and, unlike the jury, permitted to give reasons for their judgments.

Proponents of jury sentencing argue that since sentencing involves fact-finding a task traditionally within the purview of juries , and since the original intent of the founders was to have juries check judges' power, it is the proper role of juries to participate in sentencing.

The impetus for introducing jury sentencing was that in the late 18th century, punishment options expanded beyond shaming sanctions and the mandatory death penalty and came to include various ranges and modes of imprisonment, creating more room for case-by-case decisionmaking to which juries were thought to be well-suited.

Virginia was the first state to adopt jury sentencing. The state's first constitution was enacted in , and shortly thereafter, in , Thomas Jefferson proposed to the Virginia General Assembly a revised criminal code that would have eliminated pardons and benefit of clergy , abolished capital punishment for most offenses, and allowed juries to decide punishments when the penalty was discretionary.

This bill failed, however, both in and , after James Madison had reintroduced it while Jefferson was in France. Sentencing by jury was, however, successfully enacted in Virginia's penal code, which like the bill replaced capital punishment with terms of imprisonment for most felony offenses.

Kentucky adopted a penal reform bill introduced by John Breckenridge that implemented sentencing by jury in While in Virginia, magistrates continued to have misdemeanor sentencing power possibly because of the political influence of magistrates who served in the General Assembly , in Kentucky, this power was given to juries.

Kentucky juries tried and sentenced slaves and free blacks, and even decided cases involving prison discipline , imposing punishments such as flagellation or solitary confinement for infractions.

In contrast, northern states such as Pennsylvania , Maryland , New Jersey , and New York allowed judges to determine penalties, with Pennsylvania also allowing judges to pardon prisoners who, in their view, had evidenced sincere reformation.

One hypothesis is that Virginia opted for jury sentencing because Federalists like George Keith Taylor distrusted the Republican district court judges; while in Pennsylvania, the Constitutionalists sought over the objections of Republicans to put sentencing power in the hands of the judges because the bench was populated by Constitutionalists.

North Carolina , South Carolina , and Florida , which did not establish penitentiaries until after the American Civil War , also left sentencing to judges' discretion.

The adoption of jury sentencing happened at the same time that the movement for an elective judiciary gathered speed, with at least four states, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, and North Dakota switching to judicial elections around the same time that they adopted jury sentencing.

Both reforms may have been due to a mistrust of unelected judges. During the ten years of the Republic of Texas , judges determined sentences.

The change to jury determination of the penalty was brought about by one of the first laws passed by the first legislature of the State of Texas in , which empowered the jury to sentence the defendant in all criminal cases except capital cases and cases for which punishment was fixed by law.

Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia adopted jury sentencing later in the 19th century. The U.

Supreme Court ruling in Sparf v. United States reflected growing concern that letting juries decide whether or how the law should be applied in particular cases could be detrimental to the rule of law.

By , the role of juries in determining penalties was being eroded by the professionalization of sentencing, as many states passed laws that created parole and probation systems.

These systems were based on a consequentialist philosophy that it would be more useful for society to focus on finding ways to prevent future crime than on fixing blame for crime that had occurred in the past.

Criminal behavior was viewed as the result of such factors as heredity , social circumstances, random breeding, and Darwinian struggle , rather than an abuse of divinely-granted free will.

Psychology and sociology would determine the causes of crime and what social reforms and treatment programs would correct them. Probation officers gathered and analyzed information about the defendant's character and prepared a presentence report that served as the basis for the ultimate sentence.

Probation provided opportunities for treatment in the community for juveniles and adults. In the prison system, parole commissioners , trained in penology and insulated from political pressures, determined when prisoners had been rehabilitated and could be reintegrated into society.

It would, therefore, not be possible for juries to sentence the defendant at the time of conviction, if the jury needed to rely on a presentence report in making its sentencing decision; rather, the jury would need to be broken up and reassembled later, which could be unworkable if the delay between verdict and sentencing is substantial.

Furthermore, jury control procedures typically provide that during the trial, information about the defendant's background that is not relevant to the issue of guilt is not to be presented in the presence of the jury, lest it prejudice him.

The assumptions that presentence reports would be more informative than presentence hearings, and that training and experience were required to intelligently consider the data and assess sanctions, militated in favor of having a judge rather than a jury do the sentencing.

Supreme Court held that alleged juvenile delinquents have no right to a jury trial, with Harry Blackmun and three other Justices opining that an adversarial system would put an end to the prospect of an intimate, informal protective proceeding focused on rehabilitation.

Georgia and Tennessee both had periods from —, and from —, respectively in which they briefly abandoned jury sentencing while experimenting with indeterminate sentencing.

By , fourteen states gave juries sentencing powers in non-capital cases, although by , that number had dropped to thirteen.

By the s and s, determinate sentencing , a new intellectual current that repudiated the rehabilitative model with its focus on using mathematical models and grids to determine sentences, had made inroads, making jury sentencing seem like more of an anachronism.

Oklahoma abolished jury sentencing but reinstated it in In Canada, a faint hope clause formerly allowed a jury to be empanelled to consider whether an offender's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced, but this was repealed in According to some commentators, the time is ripe for a revival of jury sentencing, because flaws in the determinate sentencing systems are becoming increasingly apparent.

Lawmakers drafting legislation such as the Sentencing Reform Act have had difficulty mustering the political will to make clear choices among opposing moral and ideological viewpoints, instead delegating these decisions to agencies that lack the representativeness and democratic origin of legislatures.

Prosecutors have routinely circumvented the sentencing guidelines through their charging and plea bargaining decisions, creating a new set of disparities, despite the intent of the guidelines to curtail disparities.

Also, some juries have been acquitting guilty defendants to save them from what they regard as overly harsh mandatory minimum sentences , such as those imposed by the Rockefeller Drug Laws and California's three-strikes law.

There have been movements to abolish sentencing commissions and guideline systems and inform jurors of their right to nullify. Decisions like Apprendi v.

New Jersey requiring a jury, rather than a judge, to find any facts that would increase a defendant's maximum sentence and Ring v.

Arizona requiring a jury, rather than a judge, to find whether there are aggravating factors justifying capital punishment have also signaled a willingness by the judiciary to expand the role of the jury in the legal process.

Jury sentencing has been seen as a way to in many cases render moot the questions raised by Apprendi and related cases such as Blakely v. Washington and United States v.

Booker [] about the differences between elements of an offense and sentencing factors by letting the jury decide all the facts.

Alabama and Graham v. Florida banning mandatory life imprisonment without parole, and life imprisonment without parole in non-homicide cases, respectively, for juveniles, as contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution 's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment also raise a question of whether the Supreme Court logically should allow only a jury, rather than a judge, to determine a juvenile should receive such a sentence, given the parallels between adult capital punishment case law and juvenile life imprisonment with parole case law.

In Virginia, under the act, capital punishment remained mandatory for first-degree murder , but the penalty for second-degree murder was any term between five and eighteen years in the penitentiary.

The act gave the court in murder cases the authority to "determine the degree of the crime, and to give sentence accordingly" when a defendant was "convicted by confession.

In Missouri, informing juries of sentences of defendants in similar cases or the sentences of co-participants in the crime on trial is strictly prohibited under the rules of evidence.

Kentucky courts have also held parole eligibility statistics inadmissible. The military at one time provided jurors with sentencing statistics and guidelines was the military, but this practice ended in the late s as the military's judicial philosophy shifted its emphasis away from sentencing uniformity and towards individualized judgments.

The United States Court of Military Appeals held that jurors were not to consider sentences in similar cases or to consult the sentencing manual.

Under Virginia's current system, jurors are controversially not allowed access to the Commonwealth's sentencing guidelines or to information about whether sentences will run consecutively or concurrently, [] and until were also not informed that parole had been abolished in Virginia.

Less than one-quarter of jury-recommended sentences are modified by judges. States with jury sentencing have often allowed judges to intervene in the sentencing process, e.

In , the Virginia Senate approved SB , giving juries applicable discretionary sentencing guidelines worksheets, and SB , providing that the court ascertain the punishment unless the defendant requests jury sentencing.

Proponent Joe Morrissey said, "Juries are unpredictable. You have much more stability with the judge doing the sentencing.

An argument based on the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution is that criminal and civil juries have similar societal functions, including checking the abuse of governmental power, injecting community values into legal decisions, and aiding public acceptance of legal determinations; and therefore the criminal system should have juries decide sentences much as the civil system has juries decide judgments.

Arguments that have been raised against sentencing by jury are that juries are not as accountable as judges; that putting them in charge of determining both guilt and the sentence concentrates too much power in one body; and that different juries may differ widely in the sentences they impose.

Counterarguments are that the lack of accountability of jurors to a higher authority preserves their judicial independence , and that judges are also capable of differing from other judges in the sentences they impose.

Judges may even deviate from their own usual sentencing practices if the case is high-profile or a judicial election is coming up.

Also, disparities are not always a sign of arbitrariness; sometimes they may reflect geographical differences in public attitudes toward a given crime, or a jury's taking proper account of the individual circumstances of each offender.

It is sometimes argued that an unreasonable juror may force the rest of the jury into an undesirable compromise to find the defendant guilty but impose an overly light sentence.

A counter-argument is that whether this is bad or good is a matter of perception since "one juror's principled holdout is another juror's irrational nullification.

One jury's 'compromise' is another jury's perfectly appropriate give-and-take deliberations. According to University of Chicago Law School lecturer Jenia Iontcheva, sentencing decisions are well-suited to being made through a process of deliberative democracy rather than by experts such as judges, since they involve deeply contested moral and political issues rather than scientific or technical issues.

She argues that since sentencing requires individualized, case-by-case assessments, sentences should be decided through small-scale deliberation by juries, as opposed to having lawmakers codify general policies for mechanical application by judges.

An advantage Iontcheva cites of having juries come together to deliberate on sentences is that the jurors may alter their preferences in the light of new perspectives.

She argues that the hearing and consideration of diverse opinions will give the sentencing decisions greater legitimacy, and that engaging ordinary citizens in government through this process of deliberative democracy will give these citizens confidence about their ability to influence political decisions and thus increase their willingness to participate in politics even after the end of their jury service.

Racial and other minorities may also benefit from having greater representation among jurors than among judges. In jurisdictions that do not have any statutory provisions formally allowing jury sentencing, judges have sometimes consulted with the jury on sentencing anyway.

At the federal level, the practice of polling the jury and using their input in sentencing was upheld on appeal by the 6th U. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sentencing is said to be more time-consuming for jurors than the relatively easy task of ascertaining guilt or innocence, [] which means an increase in jury fees and in the amount of productivity lost to jury duty.

Concerns about jury tampering through intimidation by defendants were also raised. Civil rights leader James Bevel was sentenced to 15 years in prison pursuant to the recommendation of a Virginia jury that found him guilty of having sex with his teenage daughter in the s when they lived in Leesburg.

The sentencing range had been 5 to 20 years. After James Alex Fields Jr. Jurors are selected from a jury pool formed for a specified period of time—usually from one day to two weeks—from lists of citizens living in the jurisdiction of the court.

The lists may be electoral rolls i. When selected, being a member of a jury pool is, in principle, compulsory.

Prospective jurors are sent a summons and are obligated to appear in a specified jury pool room on a specified date. However, jurors can be released from the pool for several reasons including illness, prior commitments that can't be abandoned without hardship, change of address to outside the court's jurisdiction, travel or employment outside the jurisdiction at the time of duty, and others.

Often jurisdictions pay token amounts for jury duty and many issue stipends to cover transportation expenses for jurors. Work places cannot penalize employees who serve jury duty.

Payments to jurors varies by jurisdiction. In the United States jurors for grand juries are selected from jury pools.

Selection of jurors from a jury pool occurs when a trial is announced and juror names are randomly selected and called out by the jury pool clerk.

Once the list of prospective jurors has assembled in the courtroom the court clerk assigns them seats in the order their names were originally drawn.

At this point the judge often will ask each prospective juror to answer a list of general questions such as name, occupation, education, family relationships, time conflicts for the anticipated length of the trial.

The list is usually written up and clearly visible to assist nervous prospective jurors and may include several questions uniquely pertinent to the particular trial.

These questions are to familiarize the judge and attorneys with the jurors and glean biases, experiences, or relationships that could jeopardize the proper course of the trial.

After each prospective juror has answered the general slate of questions the attorneys may ask follow-up questions of some or all prospective jurors.

Each side in the trial is allotted a certain number of challenges to remove prospective jurors from consideration. Some challenges are issued during voir dire while others are presented to the judge at the end of voir dire.

The judge calls out the names of the anonymously challenged prospective jurors and those return to the pool for consideration in other trials.

Trotz alledem gibt Jake den Fall nicht ab, auch nicht, als er von Vertretern einer schwarzen Menschenrechtsvertretung eine sehr hohe Abfindung angeboten bekommt, damit nicht er, sondern ein erfahrenerer Anwalt den Fall übernehme.

Zur allgemeinen Überraschung teil der Polizist mit, dass er dem Angeklagten seine Verletzung nicht übelnehme, denn er selbst hätte in dessen Situation vermutlich ebenso gehandelt.

Am letzten Tag der Verhandlung werden die Schlussplädoyers gehalten. Währenddessen werden mehrere der Ku-Klux-Klan-Mitglieder für ihre begangenen Verbrechen festgenommen.

Grisham habe eine weitgehende Kontrolle über die Verfilmung erhalten, was dem Film zugutekomme. Roger Ebert lobte in der Chicago Sun-Times vom Jackson und Matthew McConaughey.

Reale Verhältnisse werden dabei ebenso verbogen wie die gegenwärtigen Dimensionen des Rassenkonflikts. Die unglaubliche Geschichte der Mrs. Die Chaotenclique St.

Emmet Walsh : Dr. Willard Tyrell 'W. Filme von Joel Schumacher. Namensräume Artikel Diskussion. Ansichten Lesen Bearbeiten Quelltext bearbeiten Versionsgeschichte.

Die Jury (A Time to Kill): Drama/Thriller/Justizdrama von Arnon Milchan/​Michael G. Nathanson mit Samuel L. Jackson/Kiefer Sutherland/Kurtwood Smith. Die Jury. Gerichtsthriller nach John Grisham: Das Plädoyer für Selbstjustiz ist mitreißend inszeniertes und gespieltes Emotionskino, dessen Botschaft jedoch leider. In Die Jury arbeiten Sarah Bullock und Matthew McConaughey an einen komplexen Fall, der die rassistischen Strukturen der USA offenlegt. Am letzten Tag der Verhandlung werden die Schlussplädoyers gehalten. Die einzige Möglichkeit Carl Lee zu retten, ist es, ihn als unzurechnungsfähig erscheinen zu lassen. Trotz alledem gibt Jake den Fall nicht ab, auch nicht, als er von Vertretern einer schwarzen Menschenrechtsvertretung eine sehr hohe Abfindung angeboten bekommt, damit nicht er, sondern ein erfahrenerer Anwalt den Fall übernehme. Sprachen Englisch. Namensräume Artikel Diskussion. Dvd Aktuell findet Reuben V. Der junge Anwalt Jake Brigance übernimmt Stolze Fall. In legal systems based on English Die Jury, findings of fact by Bruno And Boots jury, and jury conclusions that could be supported by jury findings of fact even if the specific factual basis for the verdict is not known are entitled to great deference on appeal. FSK Besides petit juries for jury trials and grand juries for issuing indictments, juries are sometimes used in non-legal or quasi-legal contexts. North CarolinaSouth Carolina Kochprofis Namen, and Floridawhich did not establish penitentiaries until after Brandy Ledford American Civil Waralso left sentencing to judges' discretion. In United States v. It is not required that a suspect be notified of grand jury proceedings. When Serien Stream Scorpion Staffel 3, being a member of a jury pool is, in Pro7 Sat1 Kabel1 Kein Empfang Satellit 2019, compulsory. Danach versuchen sie, Sky Ticket Aufnehmen Mädchen umzubringen, allerdings scheitern sie daran. In these cases Beats Film out of 9 jurors must find against the defendant, and may not be overruled in cases of acquittal. Download as PDF Printable version.

Die Jury aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie Video

Radiohead - No Suprises (Claire Litzler) - The Voice of Germany - Blind Audition

Die Jury Inhaltsverzeichnis Video

Die Jury - Trailer Deutsch HD Die Jury

Die Jury Navigationsmenü Video

Radiohead - No Suprises (Claire Litzler) - The Voice of Germany - Blind Audition Racial and other minorities may also benefit from having greater representation among John Bennett than among judges. As a guarantee against any abuse of power by the educated elite, the number of lay judges always exceeds the number of appointed judges. Retrieved FloridaU. They were Nymphomanic in a discreet manner for Parsi divorce courts, wherein a panel of members called 'delegates' are randomly selected from the community to decide the Steping Out of the case.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Dieser Beitrag hat 2 Kommentare

  1. Galabar

    Diese einfach unvergleichliche Mitteilung

  2. Goltizahn

    Ich bedauere, aber nichts darf man nicht machen.

Schreibe einen Kommentar