How And When Juries Interpret Laws

In a jury trial, the jury acts as the trier of fact, finding the facts and applying them to the relevant statute or law as instructed by the judge. The jury decides 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 during a trial, decides what facts the evidence has established, and draws inferences from those facts to form the basis for their decision. The jury is not obligated to follow the law as given by the judge, and this can sometimes lead to jury nullification, where the jury's verdict differs from the law.

Jury nullification

The jury's reasons for nullification may include a belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.

Today, jury nullification continues to be a topic of discussion, particularly in relation to drug laws that some consider unjust or discriminatory. While some states have passed laws allowing defence attorneys to inform juries about nullification, it remains a controversial issue in the legal system.

Judge's instructions to the jury

Jury instructions are guidelines for jury deliberation that are written by the judge and given to the jury. Jury instructions are the only guidance the jury should receive when deliberating and are meant to keep the jury on track regarding the basic procedure of the deliberation and the substance of the law on which their decision is based.

In a trial, jury deliberation occurs after evidence is presented and closing arguments are made. Jury instructions are typically brief, concise, non-repetitive, relevant to the case’s details, and understandable to the average juror. They should correctly state the law without misleading the jury or inviting unnecessary speculation.

The judge decides the questions of law, while the jury decides the questions of fact. After deciding the questions of fact, the jury applies the facts as they find them to the law as directed by the judge at the end of the trial.

In the US, the Supreme Court has held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of its right to nullify laws. In Sparf v. United States, the Court ruled that judges can penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and declare a mistrial if such an argument has been presented.

Jury nullification refers to a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law. This can occur because a not-guilty verdict cannot be overturned and jurors are protected regardless of their verdicts. Jury nullification is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case.

Jury's role in sentencing

The jury's role in sentencing varies from country to country. In most states and federal courts in the US, only the judge determines the sentence to be imposed. However, in most states, juries impose a sentence in cases where the death penalty is a possibility. In Canada, juries have long had the option to recommend mercy, leniency, or clemency, and judges are not bound by the jury's recommendation. In a small number of US jurisdictions, including Tennessee and Texas, juries are charged with finding guilt or innocence and assessing and fixing sentences. In Germany and many other continental European countries, professional judges and lay judges deliberate together at both the trial and sentencing stages.

In the US, jury sentencing began in the state of Virginia in the 18th century and spread westward to other states. Jury sentencing is defended on the grounds that sentencing involves fact-finding, a task traditionally within the purview of juries, and that the original intent of the founders was to have juries check judges' power. Opponents argue that judges are better informed and that jury control procedures deprive juries of the opportunity to hear information about the defendant's background.

Jury selection

The court clerk then calls groups of jurors for questioning by the judge and the attorneys. The judge speaks to the jurors, providing them with the names of the people involved in the case and a summary of the case. The judge and the attorneys then ask the jurors questions to determine if they are free of bias or prejudice, or if there is any other reason they cannot be impartial. This process is called voir dire.

The law allows the judge and the lawyers to excuse individual jurors from service for various reasons. If a lawyer wants a juror to be excused, they must use a "challenge" to do so. Challenges can be for cause or peremptory. There are unlimited challenges for cause, as well as a set number of peremptory challenges allowed for each side, depending on the type of case.

The process of questioning and excusing jurors continues until 12 jurors are accepted for the trial. Alternate jurors may also be selected. The judge and attorneys agree that these jurors are qualified to decide impartially and intelligently on the factual issues in the case. Once the selection of the jury is completed, the jurors take an oath:

> Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?

Jurors should think carefully about the oath before taking it. The oath means they give their word to reach a verdict based only on the evidence presented in the trial and the court's instructions about the law. They cannot consider any other evidence or instruction other than those given by the court in the case before them.

Jury deliberation

During jury selection, prospective jurors are questioned by the judge and attorneys to ensure they are unbiased and can be fair and impartial. This process, known as voir dire, helps ensure that only qualified individuals are chosen as jurors. Once the jury is selected, they are sworn in, promising to truthfully consider all evidence presented and follow the law as explained by the judge.

Throughout the trial, the jury listens to evidence, including witness testimonies and exhibits, to establish the facts of the case. The judge plays a crucial role in determining which evidence the jury may consider and instructing the jury on the legal principles to follow when weighing the facts. After closing arguments, the jury retires to the jury room to deliberate.

During deliberations, the jury discusses and evaluates the evidence, applying the law as instructed by the judge. They must consider all instructions and give them equal weight, even if they disagree with the law. It is important to note that jurors are not allowed to consider any evidence or information outside of what was presented in the courtroom. They must also refrain from conducting their own investigations or experiments related to the case.

The jury's primary role is to find facts and apply them to the law. However, in some cases, juries may engage in jury nullification, where they return a “not guilty” verdict even if they believe the defendant broke the law. This can occur due to a range of reasons, such as believing the law is unjust or the punishment too harsh. While jury nullification is not officially recognised, it highlights the complexity and potential challenges of the jury deliberation process.

Ultimately, the jury's decision-making process is a critical component of the legal system, ensuring that cases are decided upon by a group of impartial individuals representing a cross-section of the community. By following the established procedures and considering all relevant facts and laws, juries play a vital role in ensuring a fair and just outcome in criminal and civil cases.

Frequently asked questions