Murder Jury
Contents:
She said she could be fair to Van Dyke, noting that she believed there are three sides to every story. Based on an internal poll, the defense contended that Legal precedent holds that attorneys cannot strike jurors because of their race, so they often offer other reasons for the dismissal. The selection of five jurors on the first day suggests that concerns it would be impossible to find 12 fair-minded jurors after years of extensive pretrial publicity may be overblown.
Kelly child pornography case — which was presided over by the same judge and had the same selection process — seated only three jurors on its first day. Still, Van Dyke's legal team continued its bid to move the trial outside Cook County, filing additional paperwork Monday alleging protests outside the courthouse last week created a "carnival" atmosphere, further muddying efforts to find an unbiased jury.
To be sure, the majority of prospective jurors appeared tense to be part of the high-profile case that roiled the city after the release of the graphic video of the shooting. At least two asked for water during their questioning, and the judge often had to tell them to relax, assuring them that everyone in the room — the attorneys and himself included — were nervous.
The defense initially raised concern about the second juror selected — the record keeper — after the woman said her significant other works for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. McDonald was in the custody of that agency as a child.
Jury selection
One selected juror, a white man who appears to be in his 60s and told the judge he was gay, said that he read newspaper accounts of the shooting but that he had never seen the video. Neither side objected to his inclusion, just as they both agreed to select a young financial analyst for the panel. A pre-hearing conference is a conference held prior to the beginning of a trial.
It is held between the prosecutor and the accused or counsel for the accused and is presided over by the court. The purpose of a pre-hearing conference is to promote a fair and expeditious trial. It considers matters that would be better decided before the start of the trial and makes arrangements for the decisions of those matters.
A pre-hearing conference is mandatory for any case to be tried by jury per s. It must be presided over by a judge of the court that will try the accused, and must be held in accordance with the rules of court made under sections and A pre-hearing conference judge does not have the jurisdiction to review the Crown disclosure decisions or to order disclosure [2].
In the United States , capital cases cases where the prosecution pursues the death penalty , the jury must often be "death-qualified". A death-qualified jury is one in which all members of the venire that categorically object to capital punishment are removed. This has the effect of ensuring that the jury will be willing to hand down a sentence of death, if they feel the crime warrants it. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the practice is constitutional. Critics object to death-qualification because empirical evidence [3] has shown that death-qualified jurors are more likely to convict defendants of crimes than are jurors generally.
In the s and s in the United States, scientific jury selection —the use of expert assistance to more effectively use peremptory challenges — became more common. The practice has proven controversial because of fears that it gives lawyers the ability to "fix" the jury and enhances the distorting effect of money.
However, research indicates that the effect of the practice is modest at best. Currently, the more generic jury consulting or jury research is increasingly more common as attorneys trying high-stakes cases demand assistance through all parts of the trial process.
Result Filters
The still more generic field of trial consulting also contains a myriad of other tools and techniques not directly related to juries. Jury packing is "illegally or corruptly influencing a jury by making available for jury service persons known to be biased or partial in a particular case to be tried". In the nineteenth century, the prosecution had unlimited peremptory challenges in England and Ireland, whereas the defence were limited to six in England or 20 in Ireland. The pool from which a jury panel is selected may not have the same demographics as the general population; until the nineteenth century or later in many jurisdictions, jury service, as with the electoral franchise , was restricted to male property owners.
In three studies of legal authoritarianism, attitudes toward psychiatrists, and attitude toward the insanity defense were examined as predictors of conviction-proneness in insanity defense cases. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate. June Learn how and when to remove this template message. Jury selection in the United States. Scientific jury selection and Jury research. 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.
However, Liberty director of policy Isabella Sankey said that "This is a dangerous precedent. Because the unified Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure set to enter into force in does not provide for jury trials or lay judges, however, they are likely to be abolished in the near future. 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. Those few cases being tried set the standard for everybody in determining what to do with the 95 percent, 96 percent of the plea bargain cases. In Australia, academics are permitted to scrutinize the jury process only after obtaining a certificate or approval from the Attorney-General.
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'. The Commonwealth can determine which offences are 'on indictment'.
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 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 results 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 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 offence 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 offence 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 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. The jury found no place in the Indian Constitution, and it was ignored in many Indian states.
The Law Commission recommended its abolition in in its 14th Report. Jury trials were abolished in India in most courts after the infamous KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra except for Matrimonial Disputes of Parsis by a very discrete process during the s, finishing with the Code of Criminal Procedure , which is still in force today.
Nanavati surrendered himself to the police after killing Ahuja.
BREAKING: Jury discharged, charges dropped in murder trial
The case was the last jury trial held in India. The central question of the case was whether the gun went off accidentally or whether it was a premeditated murder. In the former scenario, Nanavati would be charged under the Indian penal code , for culpable homicide, with a maximum punishment of 10 years. In the latter, he would be charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life imprisonment.
Nanavati pleaded not guilty. His defence team argued it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.
The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati not guilty under [52] with an 8—1 verdict. The sessions judge considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the high court. The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points.
One, the onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati. Two, was Sylvia's confession of the grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or both. Three, the judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third person. And four, the jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defence had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.
The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. Since the jury was alleged to have been influenced by media and public support for Nanavati, the Indian government abolished jury trials after the case even though no comparative study was done on media influence on judges and on Jury.
The law of the Republic of 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 usually only used in cases of defamation.
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. 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 is solely used in criminal cases on the second tier of the three-tier Norwegian court system " Lagmannsretten ".
The jury consists of 10 people, and has 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 exists on both the first and second tier of the Norwegian court system: In Tingretten , one judge and two lay judges preside, and in Lagmannsretten three judges and four lay judges preside if a jury is not used.
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. Spain had no established tradition of using juries in trials, but the Constitution of , legislates the right to a trial by jury, called "popular jury" as opposed to a "magistrates jury".
The provision is arguably somewhat vague: 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 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. 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.