English Law In The Us: Who Rules?

The English legal system has had a profound influence on the development of law in the United States. While the US has diverged significantly from its English ancestor, the two countries share a common law heritage. This is particularly evident in the area of tort law, with many fundamental principles of US injury law originating from England. Additionally, the US jury trial system is modelled after the British one, and both countries share key elements such as a presiding judge, prosecutor, defence counsel, witnesses, and a court stenographer. The US also inherited the English principle of stare decisis, which ensures uniformity and consistency in the application of common law.

Jury trials in the US are based on British jury trials

Jury trials are a fundamental component of many legal systems around the world, including the United States and England. While the US legal system has evolved since its independence from Britain, it is clear that jury trials in the US are based on British jury trials.

The jury trial, also known as a trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. This is distinct from a bench trial, where a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Jury trials are a feature of common law systems, such as those in the US and England, rather than civil law systems.

The use of jury trials has had a profound impact on the nature of American civil and criminal procedure rules. Jury trials are available in both civil and criminal cases in the US, but they tend to be reserved for high-profile or serious criminal cases. In fact, approximately two-thirds of jury trials are criminal trials.

The US and England share several key elements in their jury trials, including a presiding judge, prosecutor, defence counsel, witnesses, and a court stenographer. In both countries, the role of the jury is to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. However, there are also some notable differences between the two systems.

One significant difference is the composition of the jury. In the US, a jury typically consists of 12 individuals selected from the local community. In England, the jury is also made up of 12 individuals, but they are chosen at random from the population by the court service. The process of selecting a jury, or voir dire, also differs between the two countries. In the US, potential jurors are questioned by both the prosecution and the defence to determine their suitability, while in England, potential jurors are randomly selected and not subjected to questioning.

Another difference lies in the verdict. In the US, the jury must reach a unanimous verdict, meaning all 12 jurors must agree on the defendant's guilt or innocence. In England, a majority verdict is acceptable, with 10 out of 12 jurors needing to agree. Additionally, peremptory challenges, where potential jurors can be dismissed without a reason, are allowed in the US but not in England.

The role of the judge also varies between the two countries. In the US, the judge plays an active role in the trial, making decisions on issues such as the admissibility of evidence and instructing the jury on the law. In England, the judge has a more limited role, primarily responsible for ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly.

While there are some differences in the specifics of jury trials between the US and England, there is no doubt that the US system is based on its British counterpart. The similarities in structure and process, as well as the shared principles of common law, demonstrate the influence of British jury trials on the development of jury trials in the US.

The US has its own common law and adheres to stare decisis

The US has its own common law, which is rooted in English common law but has diverged significantly over time. The US has a codified constitution, unlike the UK, and its rule of law is founded in statute law and common law. While the US has its own common law, it adheres to stare decisis, a legal principle that directs courts to follow historical cases and previous judgments when resolving a case with similar facts. Stare decisis, meaning "to stand by things decided" in Latin, ensures uniformity and consistency in the law and prevents arbitrary decision-making.

Stare decisis operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally, stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own previous rulings, while vertically, it refers to lower courts following the rulings of higher courts within the same jurisdiction. For example, a federal court of appeals must abide by the decisions of the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has described the rationale behind stare decisis as "promoting the even-handed, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fostering reliance on judicial decisions, and contributing to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process."

While the US has its own common law, it has been influenced by English common law, particularly in the area of tort law. For example, the principle of equality of the sexes in the law of personal status and the evidentiary standard of preponderance of the evidence in civil trials have been adopted from English common law. Additionally, American jury trials are fashioned after British jury trials, sharing key elements such as a presiding judge, prosecutor, defence counsel, witnesses, and a court stenographer.

However, there are also significant differences between the legal systems of the US and England. For instance, England has no written constitution and restricts judicial review, while the US has a strong federal system and a presidential form of government. Additionally, the US has constitutionalised many areas of law by increasing the power of judicial review.

The US Constitution is based on the presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence is also recognised as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves, and guarantees the right to remain silent. The Sixth Amendment further bolsters the idea of fair trials by establishing the right to legal aid and an impartial jury.

The notion of the presumption of innocence also stems from a combination of previous laws, subsequent court cases, and the interpretation of constitutional amendments over time. For example, the 1895 case of Coffin v. United States established the presumption of innocence, where the prosecution had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption of innocence is further supported by Miranda v. Arizona, which upheld the Miranda Rights, ensuring that anyone arrested is informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer.

The US Constitution's presumption of innocence is also influenced by English common law, which the US inherited a body of case law from, up until the US declared independence in 1776. While English rulings are not considered binding, they are often cited as persuasive precedent and to help illuminate the historical context behind provisions of the US Constitution. For example, Entick v. Carrington (1765), a famous English case, was cited in the recent US case of United States v. Jones (2012) to affirm the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The US has incorporated English 'tort law'

The US legal system is modelled on the British legal system, which has influenced many of the fundamental principles of US law, including tort law.

Tort law in the US and England concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A tort is a civil wrong that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused.

US tort law includes three general categories: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts. Intentional torts involve situations in which the defendant desires or knows to a substantial certainty that their actions will cause harm to the plaintiff. Negligence is the most common source of common law in the US. Strict liability torts are brought for injuries resulting from ultrahazardous activities, for which the defendant will be held liable even if there was no negligence on their part.

The US has incorporated English tort law in several ways. For example, the US legal system retains the English common-law concept of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided". This principle ensures uniformity and consistency in the law.

Additionally, the US jury trial system is fashioned after British jury trials, sharing several key elements such as a presiding judge, prosecutor, defence counsel, witnesses, and a court stenographer. The US also adopted the English principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', which forms the basis of its criminal justice system today.

In the area of tort law specifically, the US has incorporated English principles such as a citizen's ability to sue a public entity. Restrictions on suing the state, county, or city in the US can be traced back to English prohibitions against suing the sovereign or the King.

Furthermore, tort law in both countries is largely common law rather than statute-based law. This means that tort law is founded on judicial decisions and precedent rather than written statutes.

While the US legal system has diverged from its English parent in many ways, it continues to retain and build upon the foundational principles of English law, including in the area of tort law.

US courts rarely follow post-Revolution English precedents

In the early post-Revolution period, English case law was commonly cited by US courts because local appeals courts had not yet made many decisions, and English cases were more widely reported and therefore more accessible. Citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles and an increasing number of American reports were published.

Today, US courts occasionally cite a British classic or a famous old case, but current British law almost never gets a mention. When they do, they are usually citing principles that are so basic that they could go without saying. Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent but as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilisation or even Western civilisation in general.

US courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts within their region. They are not considered inferior to federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system. When a federal court rules on an issue of state law, the federal court must follow the precedent of the state courts.

Frequently asked questions