For a lawyer or law student: What is the theory/philosophy behind how a jury is supposed to do its job?
480725
Many Americans regard the jury system as a concrete expression of crucial democratic values, including the principles that all citizens who meet minimal qualifications of age and literacy are equally competent to serve on juries; that jurors should be selected randomly from a representative cross section of the community; that no citizen should be denied the right to serve on a jury on account of race, religion, sex, or national origin; that defendants are entitled to trial by their peers; and that verdicts should represent the conscience of the community and not just the letter of the law. The jury is also said to be the best surviving example of direct rather than representative democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens take turns governing themselves, rather than electing representatives to govern for them.\n\nOne major area of concern is whether jurors understand and follow the legal instructions given to them by the judge. In a typical case, the judge instructs the jury about the laws governing the case only after all the evidence has been presented. By then, jurors may already have made up their minds. Another problem is that these instructions are written using a complicated legal language that is not easy for most people to understand. To make matters worse, jurors in many jurisdictions do not receive a written copy of the instructions and are therefore forced to learn them by listening to the judge read them aloud. Several states, including Arizona, Illinois, and New York, are currently undertaking revisions of their jury instructions in an effort to make them more comprehensible.\n\nHere are some good reference materials:\n\nJury Manual: A Guide for Prospective Jurors, William R. Pabst (Metro Publishing, 1985)\n\nThe Jury: Trial and Error in the American Courtroom, Stephen J. Adler (Times Books, Random House, 1994)\n\nWe, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy, Jeffrey Abramson (Basic Books, 1994)\n\nThe American Jury, Harry Kolven, Jr. and Hans Zeisel (University of Chicago, 1970)\n\nAdditionally  www.nolo.com is also a great reference that is on the web.\n\nHope that you are able to find what you are looking for!\n\nLindsay
148252
Ive never been on jury duty but from what i've heard it involves total concentration on the case presented before you. That means you are away from family, friends, tv, radio, even religion (your bible)...basically anything from the outside world that can influence your decision. Your role is to hear all the evidence brought by both sides of the law and give a totally unbiased opinion. Being a sequestered juror is a very important thing! It will probably be very hard at first, but hopefully by the end u will feel fulfilled as a citizen. Think about it this way, if your life/death hung on jurors, wouldn't you want them to care and thier decision to be fair? Good luck!
585754
When you truly feel the way you voted was fair, and within the Law. Most people don't realize that as a juror you really do have to go by the Laws and Penal Codes that are already set as to what the judgment might turn out to be. When a person is sentenced, it has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", hands down, and I don't think that happens all the time.....
462561
It is not a problem at all.  But the person who said that juries go on facts in totally wrong.  That's why lawyers advise their clients on appearance.\n\nFor example, I have known people who have been told to dress down to draw more sympathy from the jury.  If you look like you have money, the jury is less likely to feel sorry for you and award you a large sum of money.\n\nOn the other hand, there are some people that need some clean clothes and a haircut so they don't make idiots of themselves.  If you look like a hobo, no one is likely to take you seriously.\n\nI agree with the guy who said that technically a client could even argue that their attorney was not representing them to the utmost of his ability if he didn't cover ALL his bases.
603718
Every state has it's own rules.  I've served on juries in TX and MO.  Neither paid very much, certainly a fraction of my regular pay.\n\nMy company allowed me to choose if I wanted to keep the jury pay or turn it over to them.  If I turned it over to the company I would be paid my regular salary regardless of the length of the trial.  If I kept it, I would be put on vacation until my vacation pay ran out and then on unpaid leave of absense for the remainder of the time.  As the jury pay was only about 10% of my regular salary, I signed the check over to the company.\n\nMost states have laws that will protect your job if you are serving on a jury.  It's generally left up to the employer as to how to handle the pay issue.  Many larger companies are like mine, but not all of my fellow jurors were so lucky.  As they say, Freedom isn't Free!
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.
270575
Judges typically are there to ensure that all rules of the court are followed – most importantly, the Rules of Evidence.  Judges can rule on whether certain evidences are admissible (to be presented to the jury), as well as ruling on any motions either side would make.  Judges would also answer any questions from the jurors when they are deliberating.  If a defendant chooses to have a “bench” trial, the judge also serves as the jury (fact finder) as well.  The judge would also give sentences to convicted defendants according to the rules.
763794
Very simple process. A group of jurors (16 to 23) will sit in a room and be presented with the case. They will call you in, and a lawyer will ask you questions about what you know about the case. That's about it! Good luck!
939040
a) - A Federal jury is basically the same as a Grand Jury. A grand jury is actually referred to as a Federal Grand Jury.\n\nd) Grand jury The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment. The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence. In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith.\n\nc) PETIT JURY - The ordinary trial jury of twelve persons whose duty it is to find facts as opposed to the grand jury whose duty it is to return an indictment. A group of citizens who hear the evidence presented by both sides at trial and determine the facts in dispute. Federal criminal juries consist of 12 persons. Federal civil juries consist of six persons. \n\nb) Box Jury seems to refer to a 12 person jury. I can find nothing specific on a box jury other than that... Sorry!
481446
(m)\n\nIn the context of trials, the isolation of a jury from the public, or the separation of witnesses to ensure the integrity of testimony. In other legal contexts the seizure of property or the freezing of assets by court order.\n\nIn jury trials, judges sometimes choose to sequester the jurors, or place them beyond public reach. Usually the jurors are moved into a hotel, kept under close supervision twenty-four hours a day, denied access to outside media such as television and newspapers, and allowed only limited contact with their families.\n\nAlthough unpopular with jurors, sequestration has two broad purposes. The first is to avoid the accidental tainting of the jury, and the second is to prevent others from intentionally tampering with the jurors by bribe or threat. Trial publicity, public sentiment, interested parties, and the maneuverings and machinations of lawyers outside the courtroom can all taint the jurors' objectivity and deny the defendant a fair trial. Judges are free to sequester the jury whenever they believe any of these factors may affect the trial's outcome.\n\nJury sequestration is rare. Typically ordered in sensational, high-profile criminal cases, sequestration begins immediately after the jury is seated and lasts until the jury has delivered its verdict. It is unusual for juries to be sequestered longer than a few days or a week. Occasionally, however, jurors are sequestered for weeks. The 1995 trial of former football star O. J. (Orenthal James) Simpson for murder was highly unusual: the Simpson jury was sequestered for eight and a half months—half as long as the period Simpson was imprisoned while under arrest and on trial. The experience provoked protest from the jurors and calls for legal reform.\n\nThe sequestration of witnesses differs from that of jurors. Whereas jurors are kept away from the public, witnesses typically are ordered not to attend the trial—or follow accounts of it—until they are to testify. This judicial order is intended to assure that the witnesses will testify concerning their own knowledge of the case without being influenced by testimony of prior witnesses. Witness sequestration also seeks to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing facts.\n\nOther definitions of sequestration relate to property. In civil law, sequester has three distinct meanings. First, it means to renounce or disclaim, as when a widow appears in court and disclaims any interest in the estate of her deceased husband; the widow is said to sequester. Second, it means to take something that is the subject of a controversy out of the possession of the contending parties and deposit it in the hands of a third person; this neutral party is called a sequestor. Third and most commonly, sequestration in civil law denotes the act of seizing property by court order.\n\nIn litigation and equity practice, sequestration also refers to court-ordered confiscation of property. When one party sues another over an unpaid debt, the plaintiff may secure a writ of attachment. As another form of sequestration, this legal order temporarily seizes the alleged debtor's property in order to secure the debt or claim in the event that the plaintiff is successful. In equity practice—an antiquated system of justice that is now incorporated into civil justice—courts seize a defendant's property until the defendant purges herself of a charge of contempt.\n\nIn international law, the term sequestration signifies confiscation. Typically, it means the appropriation of private property to public use. Following a war, sequestration means the seizure of the property of the private citizens of a hostile power, as when a belligerent nation sequesters debts due from its own subjects to the enemy.
106351
The law is set up so that people can get a fair trial through the decisions of a jury of your peers, however I am not sure that it has ever been the case. Trials that I have been involved with hasn't seemed very fair to me.
754071
I have had a mix of experiences with the police and the justice system.  After all, the police and the justice system are (is?) made up of people like you and me.  I would say that the people that I have personally known who are police officers or lawyers/judges do have a greater commitment to make their community a better place than the average book store clerk, college student, or ski instructor.\n\nThe only time I served on a jury, the District Attorney and her staff were prepared and professional.  The police officers, prison officials, doctors, etc. who gave testimony at this trial were thoughtful in their responses and demeanor.  The convicted criminal (who was bringing suit to get out of jail early) remains behind bars.   Believe me, the country is a much better place with this criminal behind bars than out in the community!
633508
Clever typo: The more money you got, the better lawyers you can get & thus possibly get a lesser charge in court.  At least that's what it appears like seeing the news & watching Law & Order episodes... (I don't have any personal experience to this).\n\nSome quotes to ponder:\nJustice is incidental to law and order.  ~John Edgar Hoover\n\nWhen you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.  ~Norm Crosby\n\nAlthough the legal and ethical definitions of right are the antithesis of each other, most writers use them as synonyms.  They confuse power with goodness, and mistake law for justice.  ~Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals\n\nThe more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws.  ~Tacitus, Annals
576234
At the outset of any jury trial the judge will ask a number of disqualifying questions such as (they will be relevant to the trial at hand):\n\nDo you  know the defendant?\nHave you worked in law enforncement?\nHave you been convicted of _______?\nIs anyone in your family a police officer?\nWould serving on the jury of a 3 week trial induce an unreasonable burden (financial, family etc)?\n\nThe judge is probing to find jurors that might be biased. Answering yess to any of these initial questions will probably get you off. But if you do answer yes to these qustions, be prepared to elaborate on your response. Judges don't like jury jumpers. The judge will use the scorn of your fellow potential jurors to keep you from escaping easily. You'oll probably be further questioned in front of the entire group of potential jurors. \n\nIf this doesn't work. Then during the Voi Dire (when the lawyers start questioning) you will have a second chance. This round of questioning is meant to weed out jurors that might be detrimental to either sides particular case. Each side has a limited number of objections available to them and may have a number of jurors removed. These will be questions that obviously favor a specific side in the case such as:\n\nWould you be more or less likely to believe a member of the law enforcement community?\nDo you find someone more credible if they hold a higher educational degree?\n\nMy best advice would be not to outright lie, but stretch the truth. Don't be the first one to respond to a judges questioning. The first person is usually the scapegoat for the judges speech on how jury service is a civic duty. Choose your timeing wisely, because if you onject more than once the judge will recognize your evasive tactics. Also I would not try for the "unreasonable burden" argument. There are very few legitimate circumstances that fall under these category.
434997
Interesting if you have nothing to do.  Otherwise it's a hassle. Companies will typically give you 2-5 paid leave days for jury duty.  If you are on jury for a 2 month trial, it could be real expensive for you.   \n\nPeople can get waived for jury duty if they prove it would be a financial hardship but it's not that easy to get (esp if you have a white-collar job).\n\nMost people try to get off by sounding bias when the lawyers and prosecutor interview the people in the jury pool.  Judges will scold you if your obvious about it.
185844
Well, it depends on the jurisdiction, but basically, it is exactly what it says:  the judge and the lawyers for both sides confer to see how much they can agree upon to get ready for trial.  They will usually have to have their trial briefs prepared by that time, so the judge knows how to plan for how long the trial will be, how many witnesses, etc.  The judge will usually rule on motions in limine at that time; that's the motions to exclude certain witnesses or evidence for various reasons.  There may be stipulations of fact or applicable law, to save time.  (An obvious one is to stipulate that the documents presented are authentic copies of the originals, to save the time of having to prove that.)  They will also usually go over the jury instructions each side wants the judge to read to the jury.  These are precisely worded (we say "boilerplated") instructions which are based directly on the applicable law.  Of course, each side has somewhat different ideas as to which laws are applicable, and so the judge looks over the ones each side proposes, and decides which ones he will use.  They may talk about their expert witnesses, and the need to put certain witnesses on earlier or later than the usual order of things, for whatever reasons.  Sometimes there will be discussions of what exhibits are going to be used, so the courtroom staff can have a blackboard or an overhead projector or whatever available.  Above all, this is the very last chance to settle a case without the expense of a trial, if there is any hope of doing so.  In criminal cases, this would usually mean that the DA offers to reduce the charge if the defendant will plead guilty, rather than take the time and expense (and risk he will lose) of going to trial.
337841
I've never been called to be on a jury.\n\nMost people I've talked to who have been called to a jury have stated that it was just a waste of their time.\n\nThe concept of a jury is a good one, though, and the purpose it serves is valuable. Having a jury could mean the difference in civil suits where a plaintiff does or does not get the relief they seek. Juries in criminal cases are required since so much of the criminal law has to do with "what was reasonable" and other intangibles that should be left for the "every day man or woman to decide."\n\nTorts cases (and, boy, are there a lot) benefit from juries because the elements of "reasonableness" are present. \n\nJuries, in theory, protect the innocent from being prosecuted unfairly and help to insure that plaintiffs who had been wronged get the damages they are seeking. Juries, however, aren't perfect because they are so often comprised of un-educated people who often let their biases get in the way of justice (only 1/4 of America's adult population is undergraduate college-educated; less than 10% of the adult population has some sort of graduate or professional schooling).