What is the role of a jury in a criminal case? Is it important or unnecessary ? Can I get a thesis statement for this ? What is the role of a jury in a criminal case? Is it important or unnecessary ? Can I get a thesis statement for this ? Solution ROLE of JURY Juries are seen as playing an important role in our legal system. Juries have been used as part of our legal system for more than one thousand years but it was not until trial by ordeal was done away with in 1215 that they became an integral part of our criminal justice system. In the same yearMagna Carta also formally acknowledged the principle of an individual’s right to trial by their peers. The jury we are now familiar with and whose role it is to “faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence” is relatively young. It is only over the last 300 years or so that a jury has become established which is as independent as we now see it and which does not have any influence on law making or any knowledge of the defendant. Set out below is the role of juries in criminal cases. Juries are used in trials in the Crown Court. The jurisdiction of the Crown Court provides for the hearing of more serious offences on indictment. The offenders will have first appeared in the Magistrates’ Court and been committed or indicted to trial at the Crown Court. If there is a not guilty plea there will be a jury trial. If a guilty plea is entered then there will be no need for a trial and the Judge will decide upon the appropriate sentence. The jury is randomly selected from persons entered on the electoral register and they must not be involved in any way with the case. They are required to make an informed decision about whether the accused is guilty or innocent. The jury is told by the trial judge that they must base their decision upon the evidence put before them during the trial and not upon anything else, including things said outside of the court or anything they may have read. The jury must therefore listen to the evidence but their role may also include being made aware of physical exhibits and photographs and in some complex cases may include accompanied visits to crime scenes. Towards the end of the trial, and once all the evidence has been presented by both sides, it is the job of the trial judge to assist the jury in their task by summing up the evidence and directing them as to what the law is. After the summing up, the jury are put in the hands of a jury bailiff who is sworn in and made aware of their duties by the trial judge. The jury leaves the court and must retire to a jury room where they are required to deliberate and come to a decision as to whether the defendant is guilty or not. The jury will deliberate in private. Despite any direction by the trial judge about the law and the facts of the case at the end of the trial, one feature of the jury system is that the jury are free to make up their own minds, free from any outside influence and pressure. Th.

1. What is the role of a jury in a criminal case? Is it important or unnecessary ? Can I get a thesis
statement for this ?
What is the role of a jury in a criminal case? Is it important or unnecessary ? Can I get a thesis
statement for this ?
Solution
ROLE of JURY
Juries are seen as playing an important role in our legal system. Juries have been used as part of
our legal system for more than one thousand years but it was not until trial by ordeal was done
away with in 1215 that they became an integral part of our criminal justice system. In the same
yearMagna Carta also formally acknowledged the principle of an individual’s right to trial by
their peers. The jury we are now familiar with and whose role it is to “faithfully try the defendant
and give a true verdict according to the evidence” is relatively young. It is only over the last 300
years or so that a jury has become established which is as independent as we now see it and
which does not have any influence on law making or any knowledge of the defendant. Set out
below is the role of juries in criminal cases.
Juries are used in trials in the Crown Court. The jurisdiction of the Crown Court provides for the
hearing of more serious offences on indictment. The offenders will have first appeared in the
Magistrates’ Court and been committed or indicted to trial at the Crown Court. If there is a not
guilty plea there will be a jury trial. If a guilty plea is entered then there will be no need for a trial
and the Judge will decide upon the appropriate sentence.
The jury is randomly selected from persons entered on the electoral register and they must not
be involved in any way with the case. They are required to make an informed decision about
whether the accused is guilty or innocent. The jury is told by the trial judge that they must base
their decision upon the evidence put before them during the trial and not upon anything else,
including things said outside of the court or anything they may have read. The jury must
therefore listen to the evidence but their role may also include being made aware of physical
exhibits and photographs and in some complex cases may include accompanied visits to crime
scenes.
Towards the end of the trial, and once all the evidence has been presented by both sides, it is the

2. job of the trial judge to assist the jury in their task by summing up the evidence and directing
them as to what the law is.
After the summing up, the jury are put in the hands of a jury bailiff who is sworn in and made
aware of their duties by the trial judge. The jury leaves the court and must retire to a jury room
where they are required to deliberate and come to a decision as to whether the defendant is guilty
or not. The jury will deliberate in private.
Despite any direction by the trial judge about the law and the facts of the case at the end of the
trial, one feature of the jury system is that the jury are free to make up their own minds, free from
any outside influence and pressure. This has been demonstrated, over the years, on a number of
occasions. Such decisions, which seem to fly in the face of the law or facts or both, have come to
be known as 'perverse' verdicts. They serve to demonstrate the independence of the jury and are
seen as a strength. These instances are rare so, although they can be used to support the argument
that the jury system is 'flawed', they can also be welcomed as a timely reminder of the
independence of the jury.
A clear example of a perverse verdict arose in the case of R v Randle and Pottle (1991) where
the defendants, who were prison officers, were charged with helping a notorious spy to escape.
The defendants did not deny what they had done at the time of their trial but explained why they
had helped. They said they had acted on humanitarian grounds and it was because of the time
that had elapsed between when the events alleged against Soviet spy George Blake were said to
have taken place and the prosecution. The jury ignored the judge's direction to convict and
acquitted them.
The subsequent inquiry into the jury system, known as the Auld Report, was made in 2002 and
identified 'perverse' verdicts as a problem. One of the reports recommendations was that such
decisions should be outlawed and should allow a right of appeal, in favour of the prosecution, to
overturn a perverse verdict. Such measures have never been implemented.
As part of the trial judge’s direction to the jurors regarding what is required of them, he or she
will explain that a unanimous decision is required. There are 12 jurors and this means that all of
them must agree on the verdict. Time will be allowed for the jury to reach a verdict. In the event
that the jury fail to agree and are unable to reach a verdict, the trial judge will give further
guidance and may well direct that the court will accept a majority decision this is normally 11:1
or 10:2.
The trial judge will mention the basis upon which they should decide the case. The
responsibility for making out the case against the defendant is upon the prosecution. The jury

3. must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty before they can reach
such a verdict. The modern equivalent is that they must be ‘sure’ that the accused did what he or
she is accused of.
A jury foreman will be identified and selected by the members of the jury. The foreman or
spokesperson will announce the verdict in open court. The jury does not have to give any
explanation or reasoning for their decision.
At this stage the jury will have done what has been asked of them. The trial judge is likely to
thank them for their work and dismiss them. In the event of a particularly complex or difficult
case the trial judge may direct that the members of the jury are relieved of further jury service for
a specified period of time.
The jury are also reminded that their work, including their deliberations and details of how they
may have voted, is to be kept private and confidential.
Juries have a more limited role in civil cases. It is probably fair to say that it is only in
exceptional cases that a jury is used in civil cases
Yes, It is important to have jury in a crimina cases
A primary strength of the jury trial is that it acts as a check to unfettered prosecutorial power.
Prosecutors have a tremendous amount of power when deciding whether to charge a defendant
with a crime, as well as what charges to bring. However, they must make this charging decision
understanding that a group of individuals, entirely unknown to them, will be deciding their case
after they present the evidence. Prosecutors typically do not want to waste time and resources on
unreasonable charges in front of a jury evaluating their case.
Another strength of juries is that, if judges decided every case, it could raise a number of
concerns about fairness in the judicial process. For example, appointed judges might be beholden
to politics and the people who appointed them. Additionally, elected judges could be swayed by
public opinion in a given case. Jurors, on the other hand, are not appointed and instead serve on a
jury as part of their civic duties. In cases where public opinion weighs heavily on one side, they
can also be sequestered to minimize the amount of influence exerted by the public or media on a
given matter.
On the other hand, jurors are laypeople who are sometimes asked to understand complicated
legal concepts and apply those concepts to the case at hand, without letting emotion clog their
decision-making. It's not an easy task, and can be very time consuming, especially in cases
involving serious offenses. Because of both the time and complexity of some matters, it is not
surprising to hear stories about jurors falling asleep or failing to pay attention throughout a trial.