why is a trial jury so important in a demourcratic?
398394
In a democracy, a trial by jury is important in that the accused must be found innocent or guilty of the charge by twelve people like himself/herself - rather than one judge. It's intent is to provide a greater justice for the accused.   Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn"t--but that is its intent..  In civil court (such as lawsuits in car accidents, etc) sometimes there are fewer than 12 jurors.
70778
Yes, they do. Anyone called for jury duty must report to the court..If you have a very good reason, to not appear, such as being ill, or disabled, you must show the proof to the court clerk, or contact them, and explain your situation..A letter from your doctor, will be enough..
1021177
Trial by a jury of your peers is still the best justice system in the world, and we should definitely keep it.  Any system of laws is really just a tool.  It's a means to an end, and that end is Justice.  Now I think everyone would agree that Justice is an Ideal... it's a perfect concept, in theory.  But being humans, we are incapible of creating anything perfectly.  Therefore, the tool we have created as the means to reach that perfect ideal of Justice will, by necessity, be flawed.  So, our legal system will never be perfect, and consequently injustices will always come out of it from time to time.  But over the many years since it's inception, we continue to fine tune our legal system, with new legislation, with the appealate court process, with new amendements to the constitution, etc.  The law is constantly changing because, like technology, morality, and every other aspect of human culture, the law is a work in progress.  It will never be perfect, because we are never perfect.  But the trial system the best system humanity has ever devised to pursue the ideal of Justice.\n\n     But the trial by jury is the last line of defense between the people of our great nation remaining free, and the people of our once-great nation falling into a facist state.  It's that right to a trial by a jury of our peers that protects us from unjust laws, from the power which we vote to hand over to our elected public servants corrupting them and allowing them to turn us into the servants, instead.  The jury of your peers is what stands between the people and tyranny.\n\n    People in this country (unlike many others) are still innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  That "reasonable doubt" standard is very high.  We aren't innocent until it appears we're "probably" guilty, or even "more likely than not guilty."  That jury has to be pretty damn sure we're guilty, and they have to agree on it.  Sometimes in criminal trials someone's very life is on the line.  If it's your life, you have the right to cross-examine witness brought against you.  You have the right to question evidence brought against you.  You have the right to bring witnesses on your behalf, and to bring evidence of your innocence.  In other words, you have the right to plead your case and to try to convince that jury that you didn't do it.  \n\n     Never, ever, let anyone make you believe for a second that this great Republic of ours could pursue our ideal of Justice without the trial system.
159906
I don't have a degree in law...\n\nBut the way I understand it is that a Grand Jury is convened because a prosecutor brings charges, and prosecutors bring charges because they think they have evidence (and politics)...\n\nMaybe a news story about said corruption would generate enough outcry to get over the political hump in the D.A.'s office.\n\nBottom line, it's all about evidence... and evidence means it's provable, and usually specific/physical in nature.  Circumstantial evidence or hearsay would usually not be the strongest foundation of a prosecution.\n\nBut I'm not an attorney, maybe I'll put this on my watchlist to check out the other answers.
990804
Most of the time, it is not a great idea for the client to be on the stand because of cross-examination.  Especially if the client has anything shady in their past that could impact the trial, it is better to avoid taking the stand.  In some circumstances, a client who is articulate and believable might make a good witness.  Ohterwise, the risks far outweight any advantages.
144934
No, because our system is supposed to be a system of our peers.  By hiring professional jurors, they would become callous after seeing day after day of trials, and would not be able to look at the law like a reasonable person would.
1076193
My God, youre an idiot. Trial by Jury means that you are not at the mercy of an impersonal judicial system, you have 12 your peers deciding on your fate. It's an imperfect system but the best one available to us. You shoudl treat your civic privilidges as a sacred duty, one many soldiers have died for to provide to you.\n\n Juries are selected form the roles of registered voters. Just dont vote anymore. With your lack of intelligence you shouldnt be allowed to vote anyway.\nWith your attitude, I sincerely hope you are mistakenly arrested someday and shot even though you did nothing wrong.
557418
The jury requirement only applies to the defendant, and I'm pretty sure it also only applies to criminal cases, not civil ones.
807891
A criminal trial is not about evidence, it is all about what the jury believes. A person with a charismatic persona can literally get away with murder.
933903
It can make a big difference how and when a jury hears something.
379615
Even in jury trials, the judge (i think) is able to declare a mistrial if s/he thinks the jury's decision is completely off base.  Having one judge to make the final decision is simply a bad idea, what if he is biased for some reason?  Judges are human and do have biases even if they aren't suppose to.  If any changes are made, it should be towards creating a career of being jury members (professionally trained jurors instead of laypeople).  But, professionalizing juries would lead to increase court fees and probably isn't very practical.
508377
Grand jury is a big task, therefore work hard and read the following carefully:\n\nA jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law.\n\nIn most criminal justice systems which require a jury, panels are initially selected at random from the adult population of the district served by the court concerned. A person who is serving on (is a member of) a jury is known as a juror.\n\nThe requirements for a jury are fairly universal. The number of jurors must be a specified size (usually twelve or fifteen), and since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often some alternate jurors are nominated, who will also follow the trial (but do not take part in deciding the verdict), as a precaution in case a new juror is needed part way through the trial.\n\nServing on a jury is normally compulsory if a citizen is chosen (exceptions and exclusions vary between jurisdictions and are discussed below). Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other.\n\nThe jurors hear the cases presented by both the defense and prosecution, and in some jurisdictions a summing-up from the judge. They then retire as a group to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some countries their decision making process is private and may not be disclosed, in others it may be discussed but only after the trial has ended.\n\nIn common law countries such as the England and the United States, the role of the jury is the "finder of fact", while the Judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. Occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.\n\nActual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.\n\nThe concept of a modern jury trial stems back to Magna Carta, which gave English nobles and freemen the right to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgment of the king or other official who often had the utter power to impose his own arbitrary judgment. The concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case. Many ancient cultures had similar concepts, notably ancient Judea whose panel of judges called the Sanhedrin served a similar purpose. The Athenians by 500 BCE had also invented the jury court, with votes by secret ballot. These courts were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review.\n\nSelection\nA common method for drafting jurors is to draw them at random from electoral rolls (known as allotment or sortition). The most common exclusions are for people whose job in some way precludes them (for instance, teachers, doctors, firefighters, people who themselves work in the criminal justice system), are caring for young children, have an interest in the case, are under the age of 18 years, or who have health problems or serious criminal records. In some jurisdictions in the United States, prior legal education or being a lawyer may also be a reason to
907791
The date for such trials is set months ago.\nThe judges have to give appropriate time to both teams of lawers.\nThe judges have to consider holidays etc.\nthe judges have to account for the time they will need to write the verdict.\nHence it is possible that government can run the trial in such a way and in such a timely manner that the verdict concides with a particular event.
131733
You must respond for jury duty.  \n\nOnce there you will be among many others, how many depends on a number of factors such as where you live and the type of cases to be tried.\n\nFrom this “Panel” of potential jury members individuals will be selected  through a process of Voir Dire (meaning – to speak the truth).  This is the preliminary examination made of prospective jurors so that the court (attorney questioning) can ask questions of the prospective juror to find out as to things such as competency, interest, knowledge of the parties involved in the case, things like that, and, from these select those they most desire on the final jury.\n\nIt is likely that those in the initial jury panel will not all have to go through this process (most jurisdictions select by lot) and after the jury selecting is complete the remaining people will be excused.  \n\nThose selected will comprise the jury itself and the alternates.\n\nIf a individual has some reason that they cannot attend they can present those reasons to the court.  If these are legitimate reasons that person will be excuse.\n\nDon’t the mistake of just not showing up.  You can be arrested and brought to the court.\n\nServing on a jury is a citizen responsibility and should be entered into willing and with enthusiasm.  It is one way a citizen can participate in the governmental process.  It is the right of our citizens to serve on juries to both judge the facts of the case as well as judge the application of the law, a right we have had since 1215 and the Great Charter (Magna Carta).\n\nThis is a responsibility each citizen should take seriously and gladly.  Those who advise to prospective jurors ways to just not do it, are doing you and your community no favor.
153009
A court system is mandated by the Jewish bible and therefore worked its way into much of civilization.\n\nAs I understand it the jury system is taken from one of the nordic countries and is a very recent development. Originally the judge played the part of the ejudicator, and still may if a jury trial is not selected.
1164404
Don't really know, but the judicial system, even if they are, is set up to watch out for this.  The judge's only power is to interpret law and therefore can only make a ruling without a jury when there is only legal questions presented.  Any issues of fact must be determined by a jury, and any action the judge takes outside of his legal duty can be brought up on appeal, such as if he decides there are no issues of fact and does a summary judgment.
549481
It means one person doesn't decide your fate.  You get a jury of people who represent a cross-section of society, and after hearing evidence from both sides, they jury decides if the person on trial is guilty or not.