The Selection and Role of Juries

by blissfulsummer (student)

Chapter 6 Juries

Role of Jury

The function of jurors is to decide on matters of fact. They are mainly found in criminal trials in Crown Court and their job Is to listen to the evidence presented to the court and to decided who did what so that they can announce a verdict. They must not be persuaded or led into a verdict by any unfair means within the court, but must be allowed to deliberate ‘in complete freedom’ – said in R V McKenna (1960) en quashing a verdict which was made when the jury had been told they would be detained overnight if they did not hurry up.

The trial is presided over by a judge and functions split between the judge and jury. The judge decides on points of law and the jury decide the facts. The judge will sum up the case at the end to the jury and advise them on any law involved. The jury retire to a private rooand make the decision on guilty or innocence of the accused in secret. The judge must accept the jury verdict even if he/she does not agree with it. The jury do not give any reasons for their decisions.

Juries in Criminal Cases

Criminal indictable trials are heard in Crown Court to decide whether defendant is guilty or not guilty. Jury trials account for less than 1% of all criminal trials. A jury in the Crown Court has 12 members.

Juries in Civil Cases

Juries in civil cases are now only used in limited circumstances. They decided whether the claimant has proved his case or not, then, if they decided that the claimant has won the case, they just also go on to decided the amount of damages that the defendant should pay to the claimant. Jury trial is used in cases like defamation and fraud. Even for these cases a jury trial may be refused by the judge if the case involves complicated documents and is therefore thought to be unsuitable for jury trial.

Selection of Jurors

Vetting

Once the list of potential jurors is known, both the prosecution and defence have the right to see that list. In some cases, it may be decided that this pool of potential jurors should be ‘vetted’ eg check for suitability.

In some cases, the prosecution or defence team may decide that it is appropriate for the jury to be vetted. Vetting a jury checks the suitability of the jury in comparison to the trial matter.

Routine police checks

Each potential juror will undertake a routine police check in order to ensure ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Selection of Jurors

Vetting

In some cases, the prosecution or defence team may decide that it is appropriate for the jury to be vetted. Vetting a jury checks the suitability of the jury in comparison to the trial matter.

Routine police checks

Each potential juror will undertake a routine police check in order to ensure there is no disqualified juror sitting in the jury.

Jurors background

Following the routine police checks, each juror will undergo an extensive background check and political affiliations.

Vetting is only to be carried out in exceptional circumstance, in such cases that include national security issues and is only to be carried out with the permission of the Attorney General.

The limits on vetting for previous conviction were stressed again in R v Obellim and Others (1996). The case concerned a criminal trial in which the judge had received a written question from the jury which displayed a lot of knowledge about police powers and led him to suspect that one of the jurors might ordered a security check on the jury without telling the defence counsel who discovered the check had taken place when the jury complained about it after delivering its verdict.

The defendant was convicted and appeal on the ground that the check on jury members might have prejudiced them. The Court of Appeal agreed and quashed the conviction stating that it was questionable whether the check should have been ordered at all on such a ground and it certainly should not have been carried out without informing defence counsel.

Selection at court

Jurors are usually divided into groups of 15 and allocated to court. At the strat of trial, the court clerk will select 12 out of these 15 at random.

The selected jurors are most commonly divided into groups of 15 and then assigned to a court case. The court clerk will select 12 out of the 15 potential jurors at random to sit on the jury.

If any of the jury members know or recognise the parties to the hearing, they must inform the court. It is then the decision of the judge as to whether this jury member is to stand down or proceed. If the courts require the juror to stand down then one of the remaining 3 jurors that was not originally selected will fill the space.

Disqualification: people who had been sentenced to prison or a young offences’ institute or its equivalent could be disqualified from jury service

Jury challenge

Once the court clerk has selected the panel of 12 jurors, these jurors come into the jury box to be sworn in as jurors. At this point, before the jury sworn in, both the prosecution and defence have certain rights to challenge one or more of the jurors.

For Case

Involves challenging the right of an individual to sit on the jury. To be successful, the challenge must point out a valid reason why that juror should not serve on the jury. An obvious reason is that the juror is disqualified but a challenge for cause can also be made if the juror knows or is related to a witness or defendant. If such people are not removed from the jury there is a risk that any subsequent conviction could be quashed. The Court of Appeal said that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Prosecution right to stand by jurors

This is a right that only the prosecution can exercise. It allows the juror who has been stood by to be put to the end of the list of potential jurors so that they will not be used on the jury unless there are not enough jurors. The prosecution does not have to give a reason for standing by the Attorney-General’s guidelines make it clear that this power should be used sparingly.

Majority Verdicts

If after at least 2 hours (longer where there are several defendants), the jury have not reached a verdict, the judge can call them back into the courtroom and direct them that he can now accept a majority verdict. Where there is a full jury of 12, the verdict can be 10:2 or 11:1 either for guilty or for not guilty. If the jury has fallen below 12 for any reason such as death or illness of a juror during trial then only one can disagree with the verdict. They accept a majority of 10:1 or 9:1. If there are only 9 jurors, the verdict must be unanimous. A jury cannot go below nine.

Majority verdicts were introduced because of the fear of jury ‘nobbling’ that is jurors being bribed or intimidated by associates of the defendant into voting for a not guilty verdict. When a jury has to be unanimous, only one member needs to be bribed to cause a ‘stalemate’ in which the jury were unable to reach a decision.