Question

Describe the method of selecting a jury and provide your opinion as to whether the system is adequate and fair.

And are juries really necessary? Many legal systems throughout the world do not use juries to decide civil or criminal cases. Should the jury system be dispensed with in the United States? If so, why? If not, why not? Putting any constitutional rights to a trial by jury aside, why couldn't judges themselves simply decided cases themselves?

Answer 1

Jury selection refers to the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. First, a group of potential jurors known as the “jury pool” or the venire is randomly selected from among the community using voter registrations or driver license or ID renewals. Then who all are selected receive summons. Afterwards, a panel of jurors is then formed and assigned to a courtroom. The prospective jurors are randomly selected to sit in the jury box. At this stage, they will be questioned in court by attorneys in the United States. When the jury is facing a trial on capital punishment, then it must be 'death-qualified' to remove those who are opposed to the death penalty. The jury thus selected is said to have been "empanelled".

The eight stages of a criminal trial in order are as follows;

1.Trial initiation

2.Jury selection

3.Opening statements

4.Presentation of evidence

5.Closing arguments

6.Judge's charge to the jury

7.Jury deliberations

8.Verdict

Opening statements- An opening statement refers to the first occasion that the jury or judge gets to hear from a lawyer in a trial. The opening statement is generally presented to introduce the case in a systematic manner for the fact-finder. It is expected that the statements must be limited to the evidence that is going to be presented during the trial and not be argumentative. It is generally observed that the prosecution in a criminal case and plaintiff in a civil case is the first to offer an opening statement, and defendants go second. Furthermore, Defendants are also allowed the option of delaying their opening statement. They are given the option to present their opening statement after the close of the prosecution or plaintiff's case. This is generally not preferred as it gives an advantage to the other party's argument as it stands uncontradicted for so long.

Closing arguments- As the name suggests closing argument refers to summing up. At this time each party's counsel reiterates the important arguments for the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence introduced at trial. In a closing statement, the prosecution states the main points and ensure that their side of the argument is given. In the United States, the plaintiff is generally entitled to open the argument. The defendant usually goes second. During closing arguments, counsel should refrain from giving their personal opinions of the case, or attempt to exhort the jury to irrational, emotional behaviour.

Judge's charge to the jury- The judge instructs the jury about the relevant laws that should guide its deliberations. The judge reads the instructions to the jury. This is commonly referred to as the judge's charge to the jury. While giving the instructions, the judge states the issues in the case. He also defines any terms or words that may not be familiar to the jurors. The judge discusses the standard of proof that jurors should apply to the case - “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case, “preponderance of the evidence” in a civil case.

The judge may read sections of applicable laws and the jurors are required to adhere to these laws when making their decision, regardless of what the jurors believe the law is or ought to be. The judge advises the jury to judge the case solely on the basis of the facts, the credibility of witnesses and the evidence presented.