On what basis are the jurors chosen?
485157
In the state of Florida, only people with driver's licenses are chosen for jury duty. Other states use the list of registered voters instead. It is a lottery system for choosing, but you do not have to be called more than once every 12-18 months (many people go decades without being called to serve). \n\nThe role of the judge is to control the courtroom and determine which evidence is allowable. The judge can overturn the jury's decision and can impose a sentence of their choosing. However, this is very rare; most often judges follow what the juries say. \n\nThe pros of the system are that you get a trial before your peers, people who are most likely to understand your situation. However, often times jurors can be uneducated and not up to the task of handling an intricate case. As a defendant, you can waive your right to a jury trial as well, so you are not forced to go through the jury process. Another pro of the system is that the prosecution must convince 12 individual people that you have committed the crime of which you are accused. If they cannot do this satisfactorily, you will be acquitted (see OJ Simpson!). \n\nHope this helps a bit!
438182
A jury is used as a guideline for the judge. Many judges are pursuaded by the jury and follow what a jury says. But jury selection is key, if you get a liberal jury who finds a without a doubt criminal innocent, the judge will overrule this decision. Judges without juries are much more strict and follow thier own guidelines. Juries help the judge see the publics view about this persons alleged crime. This is why a criminal demand a trial by jury of 12, it is to help soften the sentence.
743930
Don't believe we can have a trial w/o a judge.\nBut, can you ever pick an impartial jury when so many prospective jurors are in fear of death, or trying to hit the jackpot of eternal life?
165188
I would think someone volunteering for jury duty would be less likely to be unbiased than someone who is required to participate.  Someone willing to forfeit days of their lives to the justice system might be harboring ulterior motives or prejudices that they feel are important and want to affect the outcome of trials.\n\nAlso, it opens the doors for unethical lawyers or others to 'encourage' certain people to volunteer in order to taint or influence jury pool and selection.  \n\nAnd there would be no way to insure random demographics - if only certain people volunteer than that is not random, it is only representative of people who volunteer for jury duty.
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.
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!
182688
Definetly because 12 people are selected for a Jury and they have to weigh the evidence presented by both sides.\n\nNot to mention in Criminal cases all 12 Jurors have to vote either Guilty or not Guilty and if even 1 votes differently than the rest then the Jury is officially Deadlocked.
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.
523465
The attorney presents evidence based on whatever they're arguing. It could be someone's testimony, but it could be other types of evidence. This is presented to the "trier of fact" in the case, which is going to be either the jury or the judge, who determines the truthfulness of each side's allegations based the testimony and also on the jury instructions.
557418
The jury requirement only applies to the defendant, and I'm pretty sure it also only applies to criminal cases, not civil ones.
342236
Attorneys choose jurors by using a system known as voir dire. This is where each side of a case has the opportunity to ask questions of the jurors to determine who would not be suited to serve on this case due to underlying biases.  This is where the differences between federal and state court arise.  In federal court, the judge is the one who generally conducts voir dire. the attorneys submit questions to the judge who will ask the questions to the jurors.  In state court, generally each attorney is permitted to ask questions to the jurors in an alloted time period. At the end of voir dire, the attorneys are permitted to use for cause challenges to get rid of the jurors from the jury pool who would be tainted from delivering a verdict. This means for example if it is a murder case, juror fourteen's sister was murdered.  This juror would be struck for cause because it would be hard for this juror to think about this murder case differently than they would think about their own sister's murder case.    Then each side has an opportunity to exercise their preemptory challenges to get rid of a juror.  This is where Batson challenges can arise.  It is pretty complicated going into the ins and outs of jury selection but this is a bare bones summary.
503231
General proceedure goes as follows:\n\n1.) Arrive at courthouse on time, present juror notice to officers at front door or jury managment office (depends on state your in)\n\n2.) You will be one of a large group that was sent notices to create a jury pool ( 40-60 people usually)\n\n3.) from the pool of prospective jurors 12 people will be chose at random as jury selection begins in several cases that day.\n (Note: Most U.S. Court systems have several trials set to begin jury selection on the same day and by creating a pool of people they can eliminate jury selection for several cases at once.)\n\n4.) If your in a selected group you will be taken to the courtroom and seated in jury box, after some proceduaral stuff the court will be turned over to the prosecution/defense councils to begin a brief introduction of what a case may be about and then on to specific questions directed at the prospective jury members)\n\n5.) JURY SELECTION - Generally each council (prosecution and defense) may 'strike a juror' (dismiss them) without cause or reason up up to 3 jurors (occasionally more), after using there 'strikes' the councils may request the dismissal of a juror memeber based on 'cause' (i.e. - the juror members answers to one or more questions asked of them indicates they are biased or have knowledge of the case that may cause them to pre-judge guilt or innocence) - in this case if the judge agrees the prospective juror is dismissed for cause. All jury memebers dismissed for cause or by 'strike' will return to the jury pool and become subject to selection for another jury and case until dismissed for the day by the court.\n\n6.) PLACEMENT ON A JURY - If the councils come to an agreement on 12 jurors and two alternates then the remaining potential jurors will be dismissed while the 14 chosen are retained. They will be given court instructions on silence, confidentiality and a host of other things and will either be sent home with instructions to return the following day for trial. They may possible have the trial the same day in which case the juror will hear the case and render decisions like any other jury. or in rare cases (capital crimes, murders etc. etc.) the jury may become sequestored, in this case they will be the guests of the courthouse/state at a  local motel or building provided with beds, food, bathrooms for 1 or more days until the trial is resolved. This later case is unpleasant because it will keep a jury memeber away from home, family and work until the job is completed.\n\nI hope this provided a VERY BASIC idea of the process and what to expect.
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.
853951
Well, rogue jurors in the sense that they vote according to their beliefs?  There's not much the legal system can do.\n\nThe primary reason for having a jury of your peers, instead of some professional jurist, is that a jury can go beyond their instructions, although they are never told this.  A jury decides the verdict to make sure "justice" is served, not necessarily that the law was followed.  A jury can acquit because they believe the law is being unfairly applied, disagree with the law, or the defendent is being persecuted unfairly.  They can acquit if they believe defense evidence has been unfairly witheld from them.\n\nThe Libertarians have been pushing for the Fully Informed Jury Act for decades to make sure jurists are informed of these facts, but with little success.\n\nThis is also a good way to get out of a trial.  If you are being queried as to whether you will follow court instructions, you can say that you might not because of the reasons above.  You'll be excused no problem.\n\nIt's also called Jury Nullification.\n\nIn case you can't tell, I'm a big believer in Jury Nullification.  Oh if I were ever called to serve on a jury, odds are I'd follow the instructions, but I'd always keep those 3 questions in my mind.  Is the law being applied fairly?  Is the law fair?  Is justice being served?
721523
In the UK the Juries can be anyone, who applies or gets asked to do Jury Service, in medieval times there wasn't really any civilisation, once the Romans left Britain, our excellent work of civilisation went downhill and it wasn't until the C16th and C17th that things got back on track and when we started our Empire
381280
Yes, definitely.  No where in the constitution is there a guarantee of a trial by a "jury of one's peers" as is widely believed.  The sixth amendment ensures only "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...".  \n\nThere is evidence in the writings of the founding fathers that the concept of a "jury of one's peers" means exactly that; a jury should be made up of people from the community of the accused who are familiar with the accused and have some knowledge of the accused's nature and character.\n\nI don't think that's a great idea for the world we live in today and that is why I am in favor of professional jurors who have a broad educational background in addition to specific training in the application of law.
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).