Juries And The Law: Who Decides?

The role of a jury is to decide on the facts of a case and determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty in criminal cases, and liable or not liable in civil cases. The jury listens to the evidence presented during a trial, decides what facts the evidence has established, and draws inferences from those facts to form the basis for their decision. The judge, on the other hand, acts as a referee, ruling on issues of law and deciding which evidence can be considered by the jury. While the jury decides the verdict, the judge ensures the trial is conducted fairly and provides instructions to the jury on the legal principles and rules that must be followed. In this context, the question of whether a jury can decide matters of law arises, exploring the boundaries and powers of the jury in the legal system.

Jury nullification

In most modern Western legal systems, judges often instruct juries to act only as "finders of fact", determining the veracity and weight of evidence, and applying it to the law as explained by the judge. However, the jury's absolute right to return any verdict, protected by law, gives rise to jury nullification. This right is so strong that in the late 17th century, the court's power to punish juries was removed in Bushel's Case, where jurors refused to find William Penn and William Mead guilty of illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace. Despite the judge's demands for a guilty verdict, the jury acquitted Penn of disturbing the peace and Mead of all charges.

The early history of juries supports the recognition of the power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts in England used juries composed of local "laymen", providing legitimacy and an efficient means of dispute resolution. The English Magna Carta of 1215 recognised the general power of juries to decide on verdicts, stating that no free man shall be "imprisoned [...] nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

Judges as referees

Judges act as referees in a courtroom, ruling on issues of law before and during a trial. They are responsible for deciding which evidence may be considered by the jury and instructing the jury on the legal principles or rules that must be followed in weighing the facts. Judges also decide whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges and can remove potential jurors from the pool to ensure an unbiased jury is selected. In federal court, the jury decides the verdict, but the judge's role is crucial in ensuring a fair and orderly trial.

The role of judges as referees is further highlighted in their interpretation and application of the law. Judges are well-versed in various legal sources, including the U.S. Constitution, Amendments, and the U.S. Code. They are guided by stare decisis, which means following past court decisions, especially those of higher courts. This consistency and predictability in judicial decision-making enhance confidence in the rulings of both judges and juries.

While juries decide the verdict by determining the facts of the case, judges are responsible for ruling on matters of law. This includes deciding on the admissibility of evidence, interpreting the law, and providing legal instructions to the jury. Judges ensure that the jury considers only the evidence presented in the courtroom and does not engage in outside research or influence. The judge's instructions guide the jury in applying the law correctly and making their decision based on the facts presented during the trial.

The dynamic between judges and juries is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the justice system. Judges act as a check against malicious juries by retaining the right to decide sentences and disregard guilty verdicts. They also play a pivotal role in jury nullification, a controversial concept where juries have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require it. Judges provide legal guidance and ensure that jury nullification does not supersede the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Jury selection

In the United States, citizens aged 18 and above are eligible for jury duty. Courts randomly select potential jurors from voter registration records within the Federal district, ensuring a diverse mix of citizens. If voter lists fail to provide a representative cross-section of the community, other sources like licensed driver lists may be used. Selected individuals are sent a qualification questionnaire, and their responses help determine their suitability for jury service.

During voir dire, attorneys question potential jurors to assess their impartiality and identify biases. The plaintiff typically goes first, setting the tone for jury selection. They seek jurors who can empathize with their story of victimization and hold the defendant accountable. In contrast, the defense aims for jurors predisposed against the prosecution while humanizing their client and adapting to the prosecution's tactics.

The judge oversees the jury selection process, ensuring fairness and compliance with legal requirements. The judge and lawyers can excuse jurors for various reasons, using challenges for cause or peremptory challenges. The process continues until 12 jurors are accepted, and they take an oath to render a true verdict based solely on the evidence presented.

Evidence admissibility

For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and reliable. Relevance is determined by whether the evidence tends to prove or disprove a material fact in the case. Reliable evidence, on the other hand, is that which meets established standards. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has set standards for evidence from expert witnesses, which must be adhered to.

The judge plays a crucial role in evidence admissibility. They decide what evidence can be presented to the jury and have the discretion to exclude any evidence that violates the rules of admissibility. This includes evidence that is irrelevant, incompetent, or likely to confuse the jury, mislead them, or prejudice them against the defendant. The judge's role in this process is to ensure a fair trial.

Before evidence is presented to the jury, foundational facts must be established by the attorney seeking its admission. This is often done through foundational or predicate questions and/or records. Additionally, both sides should have the opportunity to review the opposing side's evidence before the trial and object to the introduction of certain evidence.

During the trial, attorneys can also object to the admission of evidence on various grounds, such as chain of custody issues, where the evidence hasn't been adequately secured. The judge then decides the outcome of the objection, either sustaining it and stopping the action or overruling it and allowing the action to continue.

Jury instructions

A jury is a group of people who are summoned to decide on the facts of a case at trial. The jury is made up of people from different backgrounds and experiences, representing a cross-section of the community. They listen to the evidence, decide what facts the evidence establishes, and draw inferences to form the basis for their decision. The jury decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty in criminal cases and liable or not liable in civil cases.

The judge plays a crucial role in a trial. They act as a referee, ensuring fairness and ruling on issues of law. They decide what evidence can be presented to the jury, provide instructions on legal principles, and rule on objections. The judge's role in jury selection is to ensure diversity and impartiality.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge "charges the jury," providing them with the legal framework necessary to reach a verdict. This includes explaining the applicable laws and outlining the steps the jury must take to deliberate and decide. The judge's instructions ensure that the jury understands the legal context and criteria for their decision-making process.

In some jurisdictions, juries have the power of jury nullification, where they can refuse to apply the law if their consciences require it. However, this power is not a right, and it is the judge's duty to guide the jury on legal matters. Ultimately, the jury's role is to decide on the facts and reach a verdict based on the evidence presented and the judge's legal instructions.

Frequently asked questions