Exposé Floriane Lemière et Dominic Ellison

Introduction:

I Sources of the jury system.

A. History of the jury system

The first jury proceedings were hold around 829, under King Louis the Pious. Willem the Conqueror brought it to England after 1066, and it became an institution around the twelfth century.

( In the 12th century, Henry II took a major step in developing the jury system. Henry II set up a system to resolve land disputes using juries. A jury of twelve free men were assigned to arbitrate in these disputes. These men were charged with uncovering the facts of the case on their own rather than listening to arguments in court. Henry II also introduced what is now known as the "grand jury" . A jury of free men was charged with reporting any crimes that they knew of in their territories to a "justice in eyre," a judge who moved between territories on a circuit.

1215 : trial by jury became an explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta

The Magna Carta of 1215[4] further secured trial by jury by stating that

To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these.

By the fifteenth century, the juries' main function was already factfinding (a jury is presented evidences, and have to interpret them).

Two centuries later, it became an independent institution, independent from the King's judges. The factfinding was established as only function of a jury by the 17th century too.

As the 13 colonies still were English colonies,the same proceedings were used in the justice system (aller rechercher)

Independence

It is a representative of North Carolina, Mr Williamson, who first observed the lack of any provision ensuring a jury system in the Constitution, in 1787. Three days later, it was decided, that a clause providing the right to a jury shall be inserted in the Article III, Section 2. Nonetheless, the motion was defeated. Then, the opponents to ratification pointed out the omission and urged to fix it.So did the Congress, and James Madison in his proposals to the House.

The right to a jury trial was drafted and thereby ensured in the Article III Section 2, and the 5th, 6th and 7th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

B Constitution.

The following articles and amendments actually provide for criminal cases.

1) Criminal jury

Article III, Section 2 :

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

(transition)

The following amendments came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the ratification process.

5^th amendment

It is almost a copy of the text of the Habeas Corpus, although you can find some typical american features, such as the "Militia"... Also, it ensures a constitutional rank to the principle of the jury trial.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If officials were not required to submit to grand jury to continue the pursuits, they would be free to arrest a suspect and bring that suspect to trial no matter how little evidence existed to support the charge.

The application of these provisions is ensured by the Law.

They are meant to be a shield for defendants against the Federal State's power. According to nowadays' interpretation: »the clause protects with regard ''to every indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor, whether at the common law or by statute. «  No one should be tried twice for the same offence.

, This amendment considerably protects defendants against abuses :

The amendment contains the very well known " Miranda rights" . A defendant can remain silent if his statement can lead the jury to any evidence of his guilt.If his statement ever helps to proof his responsablity or involvement in the crime, then he may not tell the court. In that case, he "takes the fifth", following the usual formula . The defendant is protected, and is guaranteed that the factfinding is done by a most impartial jury. It also preserves the role of jurors as fact-finders.

Jury system,is bound to have a universal application . «  any person «  instead of citizens.Of course, it did not include slaves back then.

6th amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

As in the fifth amendment, a strong belief in public trials, and other citizens' presence can be noticed.

This amendment takes its importance from the entity it applies to. There is a provision that commands the possibility of a jury trial to be ensured in the States of America, which already applies the Article III, Section 2 . (reformuler)

Application of its provision in the fourteenth amendment :

By the Supreme Court'interpretation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Guarantees the application of the 6th amendment

2. Civil jury
   7^th amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,

the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

It is stated, that over a certain value, the right to have a jury is ensured to the defendant. He may only ask to have the cas tried by a jury.

$20 back then equals around $1.3 nowadays.

Atually fact found by a jury can be heard twice, depends on the application of the Constitution that is made by the different States

Transition : States do base their own jury system on their constitution. Indeed, various forms

2. Actual form of the jury
   A. Grand jury

Definition

A grand jury is a group of citizens, usually chosen from the same pool as trial jurors, that is sworn in by a court to hear a case. In the Federal courts, the number shall not be less than 16 nor more than 23.

A grand jury listens to evidence and decides if someone should be charged with a crime. Thus the grand jury determines probable cause, not "guilt" or "innocence".

Grand juries can use the power of the court to subpoena (command) evidence although they can also invite (not command) witnesses to testify.

If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence, it will issue an indictment against the defendant. Grand jury proceedings are not open for public observation.

Generally for a serious crime punished by more than one years of prison.

2) Federal grand jury

Rules of the federal grand jury

-Independent body (no family, no friend, no enemy)

-Sixteen of the twenty-three members of the Grand Jury constitute a quorum and must be present If fewer than this number are present, even for a moment, the proceedings of the Grand Jury must stop.

-Limitation of their powers : can only investigate conduct which violates federal criminal laws. Criminal activity which violates state law is outside inquiry. There is also a geographic limitation on the scope of inquiries in the exercise; often the size of a district.

-Obligation of secrecy :The proceedings are secret and must remain secret permanently unless and until the Court decrees otherwise. They cannot relate to their family, to the news or television reporters about what happened in the Grand Jury room. If they violate their oath of secrecy, they may be subjected to punishment.

-How long do they sit? Federal grand juries do not depend for their existence upon a court's term. Federal statutes set the terms of regular grand juries Which is between 18 and 24 months,

Federal Procedure:

-Frequently, suspects are arrested during or shortly after the commission of an alleged crime, and they are taken before a Magistrate Judge, who then holds a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. If the Magistrate Judge finds such probable cause, he or she will direct the person to the Grand Jury so that they can independently consider whether there should be an indictment.

-the Other cases will be brought by the U.S. Attorney or an Assistant U.S. Attorney before an arrest but after an investigation has been conducted by a governmental agency such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Treasury Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Postal Authorities, or other federal law enforcement officials.

-Evidence : oral testimony of witnesses and written documents. The foreperson (chief of the jury) may question the witness, (not obligated to answer) and then any other members of the Grand Jury may ask questions. Ordinarily, neither the person being investigated by the government nor any witnesses on behalf will testify before the Grand Jury. Upon Grand jury request, preferably in writing, they may give that person an opportunity to appear before them.

Deliberation and vote :

-At least 12 members in favor.

However, this does not necessarily mean the end to an investigation. A person who is suspected of having committed a crime is not protected by the constitutional prohibition of "double jeopardy" in this instance, because the person has not yet been "put in jeopardy" (made to stand trial).

2. Differences between Federal Grand juries and State grand juries

The use if the grand jury is not the same in every states so it is hard to generalize.

Like the federal system, the states also use grand juries.

Numbers of jurors:

In the federal system, a grand jury consists of between 16 and 23 people. The size of state grand juries varies widely from one state to another or according to the alleged crime

ex Alabama 18

Iowa: 7

New jersey 23

Duration:

Varies widely from 10 days in North Dakota to 2 years in Oklahoma

IN some state they use another rule:Alabama, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas still use the common law rule, and impanel grand juries which serve during the term of the court that impaneled them. (phrase simple)

All but two states and the District of Columbia use grand juries to indict (if there is a pursuit or not)

Connecticut and Pennsylvania have abolished the use of grand juries to return indictments, but kept the investigating grand jury. (which investigate criminal activity and the conduct of public affairs.)

Other complicated legal difference

B. Jury trial

Definition:

A civil petit jury is typically made up of 6 to 12 persons. In a civil case, the role of the jury is to listen to the evidences presented at a trial, to decide whether the defendant injured the plaintiff or otherwise failed to fulfill a legal duty to the plaintiff, and to determine what the compensation or penalty should be.

Criminal one:A petit jury is a group of jurors who hear testimony from both sides during a criminal trial proceeding. The petit jury's purpose is either to convict or acquit a defendant of criminal charges.

Open to the public contrary to the grand jury A jury's deliberations are conducted in private, out of sight and hearing of the judge, litigants, witnesses, and others in the courtroom.

Most petit juries consist of jurors who are selected to participate in one single trial, which often lasts less than ten days. Even high-profile cases last a few months at most, and after that, the jurors have completed their service.

1. Federal jury

A criminal petit jury on a federal level is made up of 12 members. Criminal juries decide whether the defendant committed the crime as charged. The sentence usually is set by a judge. Verdicts in both civil and criminal cases must be unanimous, although the parties in a civil case may agree to a non-unanimous verdict.

Obligation of secrecy (encore plus forte)

2)State jury

Size and unanimity requirements in civil cases vary considerably under state laws.  Less than half the states require twelve-person juries, and about half the states allow for non-unanimous verdicts.

The Supreme Court has held under the Sixth Amendment that juries in criminal cases are not required to be the traditional size of twelve persons (although they cannot consist of less than six persons).  Nonetheless, all state criminal cases use a twelve-person jury, and only a handful of states allow juries of less than twelve for felony trials, although as to misdemeanor cases states are about evenly split between those that require twelve-person juries and those that provide for smaller juries (typically six persons).  (phrase simple)

The Supreme Court has also held that a guilty verdict from a twelve-person jury need not be unanimous (nine votes is constitutionally permissible), although if the jury consists of only six persons, unanimity is required.  All states except Louisiana and Oregon require unanimous verdicts in felony cases, while only Oregon permits a non-unanimous verdict in misdemeanor cases.

3. Procedure for both federal and states level

Because the differences are only small, the procedure are both really close.

-The voir dire procedure

When people respond to a jury summons, they gather at the court house to form a pool of potential jurors from which they are called in groups for specific criminal or civil trials.

There they are questioned by attorneys for each side and/or the trial judge about their background, life experiences, and opinions to determine whether they can weigh the evidence fairly and objectively.

Through voir dire, an attorney can challenge a prospective juror "for cause" if that person says or otherwise expresses a bias against the attorney's case. Each attorney can also exercise a limited number of "peremptory" challenges for which no reason is required. Those individuals who are accepted by both attorneys [or the trial judge, if the judge conducts the voir dire] are impaneled and sworn in as the jury.

Once a Jury has been selected and the members sworn, the trial gets underway. Jurors are required to follow strict rules during the trial. These rules include: Not discussing the case with anyone; Not reaching any conclusions on the case until all the evidence has been presented

-The Judge presents instructions to the Jury about points of law related to the case. These instructions are intended to assist the Jury in applying the specifics of the law to the facts of the case. Jurors must follow the Judge’s instructions on the law, even if the instructions differ from what the juror might understand through reading the law. Any questions that arise from the instructions should be asked of the Judge through his/her staff. Each instruction is of equal value, so Jurors should give them equal consideration.

-Once the Jury has received the instructions and all closing statements have been made, the Jury is sent to a Jury Room to decide the case. The Jury’s first task is to select a foreperson who is responsible for seeing that discussions are open and orderly, that the issues before the Jury are freely discussed, and that every Juror has the chance to participate in those discussions. The foreperson is also responsible for presenting the verdict to the Court.

During deliberations, exhibits entered into evidence are available for review by the Jury. The degree of proof required in a case is different in civil and criminal cases. In a civil case, the majority of the evidence must support the winning side.

If the votes meet the standards for a verdict, the foreperson should notify the Court. If the Jury is unable to reach an agreement after an open and honest discussion of all issues involved, and if the members of the Jury are convinced that an agreement will not be reached, the foreperson must notify the Court.

Once the Jury has concluded its deliberations and delivered the verdict, Jurors are free to discuss the case with anyone they choose, including the media, but are not required to do

3. Critics

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict. But because of the “litigation explosion” juries play an increasingly significant role in the allocation of resources, the application or misapplication of law.

The problem of jury nullification

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.

A jury verdict contrary to the law applies only to the particular case before it; however, a pattern of jury nullification for the same offence may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

Important cost. Pay the jury Federal juror from 40 to 50 dollar a day. Varies for the State. 480 dollar a day for a twelve member jury and 920 dollar for a grand jury of 23 person

To illustrate the next point I will use a sentence of the famous Mark Twain “The jury system,” Mark Twain famously observed, “puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury.”  “I desire to tamper with the jury law,” Twain continued, “to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers” (pp.57-58). 

Indeed, in recent high profile criminal trials (e.g. O.J. Simpson, Martha Stewart, Enron and Tyco Corporation executives) and civil actions (tobacco litigation, asbestos suits), there were many criticism against juries. It was said that they were unable of assessing technical data, biased against law enforcement or large corporations, exceedingly vulnerable to emotional appeals and slogans.

The problem of finding the jurors

Exemple of the Casey Anthony case :

11 days. Nearly 250 potential jurors. A jury of seven women and five men finally was selected for the murder trial of Casey Anthony.

The jurors, along with five alternates, will leave their homes, jobs and families in Pinellas County for as long as eight weeks to decide the fate of Anthony. The 25-year-old is accused in the slaying of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008.

examples: Two jury candidates were excused after saying they were vehemently opposed to the death penalty. Another woman was dismissed after saying she would hold it against the defendant if she did not take the stand in her own defense. For not spealing the languages

Another prospective juror said she had heard about the case when it originated in 2008.

"All I was hoping for was the child would be found alive," she said. "It makes me sad. It's a very terrible thing."

The jury will spend six to eight weeks hearing evidence in the high-profile case. They will be sequestered in a hotel, away from jobs, homes and families, their every move monitored by bailiffs.