Jury Trial Essay

Jury Trial Essay
During the jury trial, there were several prejudices that influenced assumptions about the boy being innocent or guilty. One of the jurors believed
that the boy was innocent despite being abused during his childhood, living in the slums, losing his mother at the age of nine, and living in an
orphanage for a year and half due to his father being in jail for forgery. Another juror that believed he was guilty stated, "children from slum
backgrounds are potential menaces to society". This is a prejudice view as to why the juror believed the boy was guilty because he is stating that if
you live in a bad neighborhood or area, you are more than likely going to become a criminal, which in most cases is not true. Another juror stated that
since the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Although the jurors heard the same facts given during court, they all interpreted it differently, especially the juror who believed the boy was not guilty
when a man and a woman testified that they witnessed or heard the murder. This demonstrates that even though the witnesses testified to the murder,
the juror though the boy was not guilty. He understood the information that was provided but had different inferences about the case. Another example
that shared information can lead to differing interpretations is the murder weapon. The murder weapon was a knife and several jurors said that it was
one of a kind and that nobody had an exact knife like the one used in the murder. The boy bought the knife the day before the murder, which the
majority of jurors interpreted that the boy killed his father. However, one of the jurors went to the store the boy bought the knife at and found several
knifes that were exactly the same to the murder weapon. Even though the juror showed the same knife to the other jury members, some of them still
believed that the boy was guilty since he bought the knife that was used in the murder. Common ground information in this case does not lead to shared
understanding or interpretation due to the controversy between the witnesses and the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Explain The Potential Risk Of A Trial By Jury
After reading and analyzing the chapters, it appears that a trial by jury is more likely to result in a fair decision.
The potential risk of a trial by jury is the opportunity for bias through the jury. While there is a selection process to remove the error of bias for the
case, it still can happen. The jurors may be influenced by various things throughout the case that may result in their emotions and hearts being the
decision maker versus their minds. Additionally, the jurors may not have prior experience or exposure to the type of information that is presented
before them in court. This can become a limitation for the juror as they attempt to provide a proper response.
The potential benefit of a trial by jury is the opportunity for multiple perspectives and viewpoints t be used to compile a conclusion. Through the
jurors, there is a higher chance of understanding of the case as a whole, rather than the judge viewing it as another job that needs to be done. Also, it
is more probable that the jurors are more easily persuaded over the judge who has participated in numerous cases prior. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The jury is more likely to apply sympathy where as a judge will not.
The potential benefit of a bench trial is time. By only requiring a judge, the process can be done at a much more rapid rate then by screening jurors
for a case. Also, by including only a judge, a bench trial eliminates the opportunity for public bias by

Jury Trial Analysis
Jury Selection, Trials and Constitutional Rights
The jury selection process is a significant portion of the trial process. Jury selection ensures that courts maintain proper Due Process and comply with
constitutional guidelines. Furthermore, it gives lawyers the ability to evaluate the people in the jury and determine how they would feel about the case.
The trial process branches out into six steps: jury selection, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, charging of the jury and
deliberation of jury. Throughout the process of jury selection, potential jury is based on a process names an voir dire; otherwise known as committing
to telling the truth. During voir dire, potential jurors are included in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An objection does not guarantee that it will be stricken from the case but there is the possibility of it depending on the decision of the judge. The judge
then decides whether to sustain or overrule their objection based his/her observation and knowledge of the law.
Once all the testimonies and evidence are presented, the case proceeds to a stage referred to as "rest". The stage is then proceeded by closing
arguments. Closing arguments are similar to the opening statement in that the opposite side of the law cannot interfere. Attorneys use the closing
statement as a time to highlight points in the case that benefited their opening statement. Plaintiff's also have the opportunity to open or close
arguments based on their strategy. Once the closing argument is completed by each side, the jury is then "charged" by the judge to input their
decisions based on the law. It is very important that the jury does not make decisions based on personal perspectives or bias feelings. The decisions of
the jury are determined specifically from the information provided throughout the case. Throughout the deliberation, the jury is separated from the trial
and placed into a holding room to make final decisions on the case. Every member of the jury must have to opportunity to participate in the judgment
process. If the jury is unable to agree on a single

Essay On Jury Trial
Since the series revolves around real life events that occurred, it is quite accurate how the criminal justice is represented. In the series, we see
everything that we would see in the criminal justice field, for instance the courtroom actors such as the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, bailiffs,
courtroom clerk, and jury. Everyone in the O.J. Simpson was important and they all received more attention than they should have, but the ones who
got the most attention and had the biggest role in this case was the jury. Jury selection is selected from the eligible population over the age of 18 who
has complied from the DMV. There is a voir dire that process by which jury members are selected, attorneys and judge seek to gain information about
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Greathouse, she states all criminal defendants, have the right to a fair and impartial jury. In both real life and in the TV series it is accurate how a
defendant has the right to a fair and impartial. What makes the O.J. Simpson so different from the TV series is that the trial lasted for over eight
months, one of the longest trials ever. The reason why it lasted so long was due to the jury, the jury was frustrated because when they were selected
they were informed that it would only be a two month trial, and what also makes it different than everything else was how they kept the jury hostage
in a hotel room with no communication. The jury could not see their families, or friends or speak to anyone about the trial or even watch TV, hear the
radio or even read magazines. What Greathouse states in her article relate to the reason why the trial lasted longer than it should have due to the reason
that a defendant has the right to a fair and impartial jury. During voir dire, the judge and/or attorneys probe potential jury members for pre–existing
attitudes or beliefs that would prevent the jurors from fairly evaluating evidence presented during trial. In the

Trial by Jury and Alternatives to It Essay examples
Trial by Jury and Alternatives to It In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not be abolished, we need to know what it is that
we are dealing with and what viable alternative or alternatives there are to it.
I will take a brief look at the history of the jury trial. I will examine the function of the jury; look at what is good and bad about the jury system.
Finally I will examine the proposed alternatives to trial by jury that are currently in fashion.
The jury system first arrived in Britain after the Norman Conquest. The earliest jury was a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The act of 1855 'for diminishing Expense and Delay in the Administration of Criminal Justice in certain cases' permitted certain cases of larceny to be
tried by Magistrates, so long as he agreed. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 listed for the first time those offences triable in the Magistrates courts.
The act also set out for the first time a general right to claim trial by jury when the maximum sentence for an offence exceeded three months
imprisonment. (From the above we can see that it is not just modern governments that have been interested in reform of the jury system)
Over the course of time the list of summary offences has grown and a new tier of offence, offences triable either way was created. (It is this area that
the current government is grappling with at the moment) As these lists have grown the number of cases that are tried by a jury has fallen.
The crime figures published for 1998–99 show that there were 5,254,000 offences recorded by the Police. Of these 1,993,600 were tried, 1,879,000 at
Magistrates courts and 114,600 at Crown Court. Just over 6% of cases were tried in Crown Court[2]. (So you might say that if so few cases end up at
Crown court what is all the fuss about abolishing it.)
Moving on to the second topic, the function of a jury.
Here I propose to briefly outline its function, composition

A Fair Trial? The Azaria Chamberlain Case (Australia). How...
On the 1st of October, 1980, Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from her campsite at Ayers Rock. Her parents, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, claimed
that a dingo had taken her. In the months and years that ensued, the Chamberlains faced innuendo fuelled by the media, undeserved public shame and
an unfair verdict handed down by a jury who had been confused and persuaded by the police, forensic experts and media outlets. Reliance on
circumstantial evidence, conflicting interpretations of forensic evidence, questionable evidence by so–called experts, finding an unbiased jury after a
trial by media, over zealous policing, and not all available evidence presented at the trail resulted in the guilty judgment.
To begin, much of the prosecution's ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
These experts had also made assumptions and presented them to the jury as fact. One such example was the finding of six baby hairs on the
Chamberlain's camera bag. The prosecution linked this with their argument, but were later told that a baby loses up to 50 hairs per day. Other
forensic scientists such as Professor Cameron and Anthony Jones stated that if Azaria had indeed been grasped by the head in the mouth of the dingo,
she would have been bleeding profusely, and more blood would be found in and around the tent. However, this idea was challenged by Vernon
Plueckhahn, an associate of Cameron's. He claimed that the wounds in the head or neck would have been plugged by the teeth of the dingo.
However, the most influential aspect on the jury's verdict was the media. Indeed, the Chamberlain case was commonly referred to as "trial by media" –
newspapers and magazines often printed rumours about the case and believed that the Chamberlains were guilty of murdering their child. Therefore
it was difficult to find an impartial jury, as the case was so widely covered and mass marketed. The media began to present false ideas, such as Azaria
was abnormal or deformed and the name "Azaria" means sacrifice in the wilderness. They also turned around facts to make them seem negative –
Azaria was dressed in a black sacrificial robe (she was often dressed in black, because Mrs Chamberlain liked the colour), a child's coffin was

Essay On Jury Trial
Jury trials in the United States Criminal Justice system often evolve many key elements to ensure a fair and just trial. One fundamental component
that ensuring the integrity of a trial is a jury. It is the jury's job to process though vast amounts of information to determine whether they convict or
acquit a defendant of any and all charges. Typically, it is assumed that jurors will make their decision solely based on in information presented in
court, not what's presented in the media or points irreverent to the case. However, this assumption may not always hold true as it is possible for other
factors to skew and fog a Jury's finial decision. (Tarika Daftary, 2010).
Numerous studies have suggested that jurors can and will be influenced by many outlying circumstances, which can pursued them into altering their
decision. In one particular study using a jury simulation experiment, researchers uncovered that something as simple as attractiveness can slant a jury's
decision. In this study, subjects were asked to read a crime scene description of a negligent automobile homicide. In the description the attractiveness of
the victim was varied and participants were asked to determine what the defendant's ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In our scenarios we varied two independent variables; the reason for the patient's death, racism or doctor negligence and the race of the patient,
African–American or Asian–American. From these independent variables we formulated two main hypothesizes. Individuals would be more likely
to impose a harsher fine to a doctor who has racial motives than a doctor who was simply negligent. On the other hand, we believe participants will
give harsher fines to one racial group over the other, showing race does in fact play a role in jury decision

A Case For Jury Trials
A case for Jury Trials in India
By: Scott A. McMillan, Ravishankar K. Mor
Jury trials in India had come to an end unceremoniously; the immediate cause for abolition of jury trials was "Not Guilty" verdict of jury in
K.M.Nanavati Vs. state of Maharashtra . The sessions Judge disagreed the Jury opinion, in his view, no reasonable body of men could bring that
verdict on the evidence and referred the matter to the High Court under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The two judges of the Division
Bench who heard the matter agreed in holding that the appellant was guilty under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgement was affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court of India. This case then attracted much media attention.
Stories were written about the innocence of K.W.Nanavati and it was therefore said that Jury members were influenced by the media coverage and
without conducting any survey or research in this regard the entire jury system was considered bad in law, and was factually abolished thereafter.
With the coming into force of new criminal procedure code of 1973 it was abolished by all means. In order to understand the reasons for abolishing
jury trial we need to go little back in time. The Jury trial was introduced in India sometime in 1665 but thereafter no notable instances are

Essay On Jury Trial
A trial by jury or jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury either makes a finding of a fact or a decision, which then direct the actions of the judge.
It is different from a bench trial where a panel of judges makes all decisions. It consists of five steps: the selection of the jury, the trial, the charge of the
magistrate, deliberation and then the verdict.
The choice of the jury is the first and crucial step. The jurors selected must be fair and not biased. In selecting a fair jury, first is to have a venire or a
fair jury pool.It is a potential juror assembled for jury duty. They chose a jury for a criminaltrial from the venire. A voir dire process takes place to
select the jurors. It is a questioning process for the citizens before the selection to hear evidence as jurors. The jurors are then challenged for the cause
and peremptory. A challenge is a request by an attorney to disqualify potential–biased jurors. A challenge for cause is an application to dismiss a
potential juror based on a concrete and stated reason, which usually revolves around the actual or possible bias of the person. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The attorneys give their opening statements. The openings statements are the outlines of the imminent proof to be presented to the jury on trial. They
are not evidence, but a prototype of what their testimony would lean on. The accused has a right to impartial judge. Offenders are entitled to a speedy
trial though there is not the exact time limit. If the judge feels the trial has been delayed, he or she can throw it out. The span and motive for the
deferral are analyzed, and a decision is made.
At this stage, witnesses are summoned for direct and cross–examination. Prosecution's case is presented first. One side calls their witness for direct
examination then the other hand cross–examines them. After the hearing and presentation of facts, the attorneys make their closing

The Right to a Trial by Jury
I. The Right to a Trial by Jury: The Threat of Extinction, Limited Availability & Reduced Effectiveness Contrary to what may be a common public
perception, jury trials are a dying breed in America. Jury trials have been declining steadily for the past thirty years. "If the trend continues, within the
foreseeable future, civil jury trials in America may eventually become...extinct." This may seem surprising because the U.S. Constitution ensures the
right to a jury trial in criminal trials under the 6th Amendment and in civil trials through the 7th Amendment. The reality, however, is that parties are
finding more effective, faster, and more cost–effective means of adjudicating legal disputes through alternative dispute resolution ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
This may help curb endless deliberations and notes to the judge pleading for help when the jury reaches an impasse, due to complex issues. The
ultimate benefit, however, is the streamlining of the court system to allow the right to a jury trial to be exercised more often when more jurors are
available because of the increased efficiency with a trained panel. The main critique of such an innovation is that it violates the "fair cross–section"
requirement and does not maintain or build confidence or at least the perception of integrity in the justice system through jury participation by the
average lay citizen. It would also appear that restricting a jury to individuals meeting certain criteria would make the right to a jury trial even less
likely rather than increase availability if that same case were heard by the larger pool of average lay jurors. Not only would this reduce the size of the
jury pool, but also this special jury would not represent a fair cross–section of society for the case that is to be tried

John V. Pignati Jury Trial
Good afternoon, your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am Rebecca Li, one of the lead lawyers from the prosecution side. Today, we are
charging John Conlan and Lorraine Jensen for contributing to the death of Angelos Pignati. (You honor, for the sake of the jury's recognition, I will
refer to the defendants with their first names. Is that alright with you?) So, Lorraine and John started going to Mr. Pignati's house a few month before
the death of the Mr. Pignati. However, they initially went as the "J&L fund" charity members; even after confessing to Mr. Pignati that they were not
actually charity workers, they continued receiving goods from Mr.Pignati without any signs of payment in return. After a day of exhausting activities
with

The Jury System : An Important Method Used For Many Trials
The Jury system is an important method used for many trials, however some debate that the system should be scrapped for criminal trials in NSW, in
exchange for a judge only trail. Many argue this statement but from evidence that has been gathered, I am in support of this statement and argue with
it, that the most accurate judgement is only declared by a trained legal professional like a judge or magistrate. There are many arguments, cases and
legislations which provide an evident database of statements that may appeal to the use or misuse of the jury system. These documents and statements
arise from many articles, legislations and cases including; R v Gittany case, the Jury Act 1977 and various media reports.
A jury is made up of 12–15 members of the community that are randomly selected to hear evidence presented in a court case, apply laws directed by
the judge, and reach a verdict about whether or not the defendant is innocent or guilty.
The Jury system is trusted and reliable by many courts in NSW, which is why they have been continued. Having 12 other people be in a court
room to assist the judge in making a decision improves the accuracy because a judge may get stuck and find it tough to come up with a final
decision. Having a jury to assist you and give you an opinion is more reliable because it is not only one person, and undermines any one sided favor.
The jury is more outspoken as they speak freely and are not represents of the law. Under the legislation it is a

A Difficult Trial: Jury undecided Essays
We the jury find the defendant, Not Guilty!
Today is the last day of the trial. We have heard all of the witnesses and now we know that we must deliberate. I know that some of the "witnesses"
are liars. Some make valid points and I know without a doubt in my mind that Captain Preston is an innocent man and that his men were provoked. As
I listened to the witnesses, here is what I came to believe:
The witnesses for the prosecution have very different stories as do some of the witnesses for the defense. Ebenezer Hinkley testified to the fact that
the crowd became rowdy and accosted to guards with sticks and other flying objects. He claims he saw Montgomery gets hit before he fired the first
shot and said he was approximately 16 feet away ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After the first shot was fired, he heard someone say fire but could not distinguish who. I think that Jane Whitehouse is lieing for the prosecution. She
seems to try to implicate a 3rd party that wasn't the captain nor on of his men.
Preston's deposition seems to be nothing but the truth if not exagerated to some extent. He states that the crowd became unruly and that he never gave
the order to fire. Why would a man give the order to fire when standing between his men and the crowd as he stated and several witnesses concurred?
After the danger to their well–being became to much and they were stuck, the men took it upon themselves to fire back and it seems that the order to
fire came from someone in the crowd.
Taking the eyewitness tetimony into consideration, I decided to address some issues that I had. Many of the witnesses seemed to be to far away
to really distinguish what was going on with it being so dark. I am still unsure why the firebell was ringing when there was no fire. This is just a
personal opinion, but I think someone wanted this crowd to assemble for a reason. Listening to the testimony, I believe that the crowd did become
aggressive and fairly large in size. I feel that the crowd came to close to the men and began to throw objects at them. When one flying object struck a
soldier, Montgomery, he fired back. There may have come an order to fire after the second shot but I am

Fair Trial By Jury System
The implicating factor of a crime is the classification that defines these rights and duties instead of giving the rules in such a way so that things can be
set up. In the U. S. there are criminal procedure and rules that the courts must follow. When a crime is committed after arrest the district attorney or
federal prosecutor must file charges against the offender who has committed a crime. These procedural laws settle on how to proceed with these
crimes and criminal acts concerning the enforcement of law that will occur in our courts. International law and domestic law are two different types
of law. Judges are more likely to lessen their judgement against citizens depending on the gravity of the crime or offence compared to international
laws which allows for a writ ordering a person to attend a court. As citizens we are given rights that are the foundation for which the United States
are based on and what we have is the "Freedom to express yourself. Freedom to worship as you wish. Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury. Right to vote
in elections for public officials. Right to apply for federal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
These freedoms are given to us and can be taken away from citizens who commit crimes against the state and the country. As citizens we must "Support
and defend the Constitution. We should stay informed of the issues affecting your community. We as citizens should take part in the democratic
process. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws by all citizens. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. We should also participate in
our local communities. Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities. We should all serve on a jury when
called upon. Also defend the country if the need should arise." Department of Homeland Security Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities. (2017, July

Essay On Jury Trials In Australia
History of Juries in SA:
Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled "The Jury System in Australia" in 1936 . Justice Evatt's thesis of Jury
trials was that "in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy". Jury trials in the nineteenth century were
found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . WhenTrial by Judge alone was first introduced in
South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court
ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in
the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a
criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional
jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .
Juries Act and its use ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It provides the certain power to the community to make a political decisions on being guilty or not guilty while satisfying individuals with the decision
.Jurors decisions on verdicts are more likely to not be incorrect as there are 12 on the stand, whereas judge alone trials rely on one person on the
decision of the verdict . The Bureau of Criminal statistics also show that even judge alone trials show higher acquittal rates than Jury trials in criminal
cases . Another research conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology state the findings that empanelled jurors reported significantly higher
confidence when it comes to criminal trials than non– empanelled jurors

Trial By Jury Essay
A Jury plays a necessary part in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Trial by jury is one of the ways that could be useful for reaching
justice in the courts. The jury has 12 citizens who are chosen randomly from different genders and different ages. (The Guardian, 2005) the jurors work
is to help the judge to a make decision about the case so the lawyers show them the evidence and anything related to the case and then the jurors will try
to make the right judgment whether the criminal is guilty or not. People argue that they want the trial without the jury system because it is not fair
enough and there are other reasons such as the jurors do not have enough experience, jury system is not fairest form of justice, they do not represent the
society and jury ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For instance, the juror could take bribe from the criminal to be in his or hers side. An example can be mentioned here is the case of Vybz Kartel.
According to AP NEWS (2013) there was a male juror arrested because he tried to bribe the jury foreman to release Vybz Kartel (BBC NEWS 2014).
However, the chance of being corrupted for the jury is less than the judge. For example, it is difficult to have 12 corrupted jurors as well as even the
judge can be corrupted. According to BBC NEWS (2013), the judge Akil Mochtar has been arrested regarding acceptance of taking a bribe of
ВЈ154,000.
Finally, there is an argument confirmed that, the jury system cost too much money. So to clarify this argument Brian Kelly in the BBC NEWS
mentioned that, the jury trial costs more than ВЈ8,000 per day. Also Guy Hammond from the BBC NEWS said, "I realise that the court system is
costing taxpayers millions" so it is cost too much money (BBC NEWS ,2001). However, the argument against this say that the high cost of the jury
system is the price of the justice so it does not matter how much it will cost (BBC NEWS,

Jury Trial Pros And Cons
We, as Americans, have the right to a trial by judge or a trial by jury; nonetheless, there are pros and cons for each of these choices. The pros and cons
affect both the offender and the prosecutor.
When the offender is accused of an offence, he or she gets to choose if he or she wants to have a trial by judge or jury. For instance, take into account
the evaluation of the pros for a trial by judge. When an offender chooses the trial by judge this allows the offender to direct more of their attention
directly to the judge. This will allow the offender to place all their evidence and emotions onto the judge's hands. When choosing a trial by judge the
offender often defends their self, which could lead to a guilty verdict because the offender

Essay On Jury Trial
making them invisible in this whole process. A jury cannot truly understand the extent of the damage done if a victim, or victim's family member
/loved one, cannot explain it to them (Davis). In every state there was an absence of laws that required the victim or victim's family to be keep
properly and timely updated about the case. For example, if the offender was released on bail, if charges were changed or dropped, if there were any
parole hearings, etc., the victim was usually not being notified of these changes, and if they were notified, it was after a significant amount of times
passed. Which aids in the reasoning behind making it under law that the victim is to be notified in a timely manner (Davis). These undeserving people
who become... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One of the most common disappointments to victims comes along with the decision for a plea bargain, which is when the defendant pleads guilty
in exchanges for a lesser changer and shorter sentence that is agreed upon by the defenses and prosecution lawyers. This is unfortunate and
sometimes unavoidable because a plea bargain is the most common way for a case to be settled; usually victims see their day in court as the only
way for them to fully get justice and feel a sense of acceptance that is needed to move on. The most frustrating part of a plea bargain is that the
victims input and opinions are not taken into consideration. This is typically a process done behind closed doors between the attorneys and defendant
because if the victim is present it could lead to more problems instead of resolving issues. Attorneys believe that with the presence of the victim
during the negotiations will come decision making based on emotion instead of realistic expectations. Other issues associated with victims having a
part in plea bargains is that it also takes away the ability to speak candidly about the situation and lead to more cases going to court. The victim would
often try to

Pros And Cons Of Trial By Jury
We, as American citizens, have certain unalienable rights that are granted to us. Among those rights, the United States Constitution states that we have
the right to trial by jury, which is an unconditional right which protects us from certain government actions. Nonetheless, some people choose to
exercise his or her right to have a trial by judge.
Keeping this in mind, it is important to mention that there are pros and cons for each of these rights. The advantages and disadvantages affect both
the offender and the prosecutor. As mentioned previously, when the offender is accused of an offence, he or she gets to choose if he or she wants to
have a trial by jury or by judge. A trial by jury consists of six selected members from the community. These six jurors review the evidence presented to
them by the prosecutor regarding the specific case at hand. A trial by judge, however, simply consists of one judge who reviews the evidence in an
unbiased manner. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When an offender chooses to have a trial by judge, it allows the offender to directly express, to the judge, his or her circumstances and reasoning
regarding the case. This, in essence, allows the offender to place all of the evidence and emotions in the judge's hands. When choosing a trial by
judge the offender often defends him/herself without the aid of legal counsel, which could potentially increase the likelihood of a guilty verdict due
to the fact that the offender is not familiar with the process for a trial proceeding. On the other hand, a trial by judge will minimize the chance of
getting a juror who is a strong supporter of the law and who may feel that for every law broken a punishment should be administered, or

The Trial Of All Crimes Shall Be By Jury
Trials provide the ultimate forum for vindicating the innocence of the accused or confirming the liability of the defendant. For that reason, the right to
be tried by a jury of one's peers is guaranteed in the Sixth and Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. It is stated in Article III, Section 2, of the
Constitution that, "The trial of all crimes shall be by jury," (Neubauer 341). The importance of juries' introducing standards into the justice system has
been associated with the concept of jury nullification (Neubauer 339). Jury nullification is the, "Right of juries to nullify or refuse to apply law in
criminal cases despite facts that leave no reasonable doubt that the law was violated," (Neubauer 374). The checks and balances system makes the
judicial branch equal to the executive and legislative branches of government, therefore the system of checks and balances requires a strong judicial
branch and subsequently, a strong jury trial option in order to check and distribute the power of the executive branch. (Why Jury Trials Are Important to
a Democratic Society) "Just as pardon power is used by governors and the president, juries have the power to bring back acquittals," (Silverman). The
American system of government is built on the premise that divided government and separated powers are most protective of individual liberty. The
civil jury further distributes the authority of the state, granting citizens direct substantial authority to resolve disputes among

Jury Trial And The Criminal Justice System
A jury trial is most commonly used in criminal trials, but in some cases can be used in a civil trial. Steve Wilson et al. clarify that 'during a trial, the
judge directs the jury to the relevant principles of the law and evidence. The jury's job in a trial is to determine issues of fact.' A jury trial is
considered to be the more impartial trial in a court of law as the jury reach their verdict based on facts they've heard rather than the law therefore
taking things the judge alone would not take into consideration when trying the defendant. There are several advantages regarding trials by a jury,
however, research shows there are also a range of disadvantages within these trials that may be a cause for concern if ever bought to the public eye.
Throughout this essay analyses will be made on both the advantages and disadvantages of a jury trial and a conclusion will be drawn on how they can
affect the jury trials and if this is an underlying problem within the English criminal justice system.
The system allowing defendants to be trialled by a jury has been ongoing since the 12th century. The jurors' role in that time was to act as a witness
and provide evidence to the courtroom but then when Henry ll took charge he altered it so the jury of 12 men were to resolve disputes based on
facts and evidence. Nowadays, according to the Juries 1974 sec. 1, Criminal Justice Act sec. 119 'In England and Wales, juries are selected from a list
of those who are registered as parliamentary

Jury Trial Experience
On the internship at the Miami County District Court, Kansas Together with colleagues from ULIM and other universities, I undertook a legal
internship at the Miami County District Court, Kansas, organized by the Leavitt Institute for international development. We had the privilege to watch
in action the US judges, prosecutors and lawyers. At the Johnson County District Court, I have witnessed a jury trial. This was the highlight of our
overseas experience, as the 12 citizen deciding on the innocence of the defendant are the core of the American legal system. We were really surprised
by the American journalists interest in us, students from Moldova studying their justice system. Following this link you can see their material on our
group... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thanks to the efforts of the American counterpart, the young lawyers that really want to change the system are identified and given the chance to
network. The US experience will allow me to do my part in ensuring a better functioning of our justice system. The Leavitt Institute Courses The
teaching methods of the Canadian and US professors are very different from those that we are used to in high school or university. Our american
teachers used the socratic method to make us come to the right answers through open discussions and the fact that the lectures were not mandatory
eliminates some of the frustration that we're not always performing optimally. The JET Initiative helps the development of critical thinking and
represents a good occasion to practice English for both beginners and advanced students. A big advantage in this sense is the translation provided
throughout the courses. At the final of the lecture cycle, the students representing the six universities implicated in the project use the theoretical
knowledge in a simulated trial environment. They play lawyers and prosecutors defending their procedural

Essay On Trial Jury
Trial Jury Essay Thoughtout the trial of the jury, I've saw all three characters stand against their case and try to defend their case. Even though, the
character and defense attorney give great evidence against the reason on committing sin. The prosecutors did a well job of giving opposing side of the
defendant. This caused me to wonder which out the the three characters committed the greatest sin. The First defendant, Hester Prynne was a wife of
Roger Chillingworth. though her testimony, she gives a brief summary to concluded that he was irresponsible husband. Based on him just leaving
Hester and getting drunk with his friends when he's gone away. While that main thing that the defendants says, is that she committed this sin based on
thinking that Chillingworth was dead. Thus, Hester went out with Dimmesdale unknowing that Chillingworth was still alive somewhere in the forest.
This what makes Hester sin innocent that she made. Meanwhile, the prosecutor's states that she consistently doesn't let Chillingworth see Peral and was
trying to hide her sin from her real husband, even though it against the law to break one of the holy commandments. The Second defendant, Arthur
Chillingworth was away from Hester for years. He did this in research in medicine with the Native... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Though it was a close tie with Hester. Dimmesdale knew that by participating in having sexual relationships with Hester was something that a reverend
shouldn't be doing even if she didn't had a husband in the first place. Dimmesdale as a reverend and having a special duty to follow the path of
enlightenment and not to commit sin to make it heaven was a fail task for dimmesdale to do. The Temptation that Dimmesdale received on committing
this sin was a challenge that Dimmesdale must face and walk away. But he committed this sin and he shall now face the consequences that he knew
that the wrong thing to

Jury Trial Vs Bench Trial
In today's society of law it is preferable to have a jury trial than a bench trial. For many reasons a jury trial is preferable than a bench trial because
there are 12 mind's that decide if the defendant is guilty or not. The defendant only needs one juror to save their life because it would be a hung jury.
The jurors need to be 12 to zero to have the defendant guilty or not guilty. It is easier to have a jury a trial than a bench trial because in a bench trial the
defendant has to look like they did the crime while in a jury trial 12 jurors are hearing the testimony and they could decide from there if the defendant
is guilty or not. All the jurors need is a reasonable doubt to say the defendant is not guilty while the bench trial the judge ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
A bench trial, the judge only hears the facts, evidence, and if the defendant looks like they did it. One juror could save a defendant's life because
in 12 Angry Men it stated, "There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking
about it first." Juror number eight has a point in a jury trial. It is not easy to vote for guilty. He had a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. "I don't
know" it stated in 12 Angry Men. Juror number 8 just wanted to talk about the situation. This is a reason why a jury trial is more preferable a
judge wouldn't hesitate and give the defendant life in imprisonment. With all the evidence given a judge would have had a final verdict by now.
One man stood up and helped the defendant to find him not guilty. This could happen anywhere in a jury trial. If anything jurors could change their
vote to not guilty to guilty or the other way around. In a jury trial the jurors could change their vote. " FOREMAN. I vote guilty. Number
two?TWO. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Three?THREE. Guilty. FOREMAN. Number Four?FOUR. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Five? FIVE.
Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Six? SIX. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Seven? SEVEN. Guilty.FOREMAN. Number Eight?EIGHT. Not
guilty.FOREMAN. Number Nine?NINE. Not guilty. FOREMAN. Number Ten?TEN. Guilty .FOREMAN. Number Eleven? ELEVEN. Not guilty.
FOREMAN. Number Twelve? TWELVE. Guilty. FOUR. Six to six." They all voted not guilty it was all tied up. In conclusion a jury trial is more
preferable than a bench trial because in a jury trial anything could happen. The jurors need a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty. The juror could say I
do not know and that os enough to say not guilty. A bench trial, the judge, would have had a final verdict with all

Jury Trial
A jury trial (or trial by jury) is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge.
|Advantages |Disadvantages |
|Provides certainty, no retrial (subject to recent reforms but only |On acquittal (РѕРїСЂР°РІРґР°РЅРёРµ) there can be no retrial (subject to recent |
|for serious crimes). |reforms but only for serious crimes). |
|Retrial available in tainted cases (nobbling) Section 54 Criminal |Jury nobbling believed to be frequent resulting in wrongful acquittals. | ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
|
|Many judges believe jurors usually return the right verdict, very few|Easily influenced by impressive barristers, or the judge. |
|appeals from jury verdicts. | |
| | |
|High correlation in USA studies of jury/judge verdicts. |Juries not required to give reasons for verdicts. |
|Judge can correct any unfairness of the array. |Insufficient intellect. Cannot follow complicated tax or fraud cases. |
| |Note: can be judge–only trial in some cases. |
|Provide a barometer of public opinion. |Inconsistencies throughout the country. |
| | |
| |Young jurors no

Pros And Cons Of Trial By Jury
In the Australian legal system, juries have been the subject of debate for many years. Should we have them for criminal trials or will justice be done
better through trial by judge alone?
The responsibility of the jury in criminal and civil cases is to "determine questions of fact" and apply law as set out by the judge and then, with these
facts and evidence, come up with a verdict.
Specifically, in a criminal trial, it is the role of the jury to determine a "guilty" or a "not guilty" verdict which is set in place by the standard "beyond a
reasonable doubt" meaning that even with the slightest indication of doubt, the defendant must be found not guilty. This standard places the burden of
proof with the prosecution to ensure the judge or ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Impartiality is said to be achieved during the random selection process of the jury empanelment as well as through the courts ability to exclude a
person on the basis of their awareness of a particular person involved in or a witness in the case.
The right to have a trial by jury has been made available in all states and territories in Australia for criminal offences. The availability of a jury can
be determined by the offence that the accused is charged with. Applications can too be made in a number of states and territories across Australia for
the accused to be tried by judge alone rather than obliged to a trial by jury.
However, a trial by jury becomes obligatory where the prosecution of a federal offence advances by way of indictment. This obligatory process is due
to section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution that assures trial by jury in such instances.
This being said, trials involving jury's makeup an extremely small amount of court cases in Australia. Most cases of a criminal nature are heard
Summarily in the Magistrates court before being given the opportunity to a trial by jury.
The steps involved in the selection of the jury involve; Computer generated random selection, determination of liability, summons, selection of a panel
from jury pool and finally the selection of jury from the panel.
However, there have been cases where irregularities in the

The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial Essay
The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a criminal trial. The advantages
and disadvantages of using a jury to decide the outcome of a criminal case will also be considered.
A Jury is chosen at random, by a computer using names on the electoral roll. The jury is made up of 12 people from all walks of life who have no
legal qualifications, jurors play a vital part in the legal system.
To qualify for jury service you must be between the ages of 18–70 years old, though if you are between the ages of 65–70 years old then you can ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the past the jury used to be made up of people who had witnessed the actual crime or people who knew the victim of the crime, this is not the case
today as the jury are now chosen at random so as to get a fair cross–section of society who are not biased in any way.
It is the right of the jury to judge what the facts are, what the law is and establish what was the moral intent of the accused.
The jury listen to the entire hearing and are allowed to take notes or ask to have certain things clarified if there is anything they aren't sure of, as it is
extremely important that they have understood what has been said so that they can later reach a fair verdict.
After the closing speech the judge will:
* Sum up the facts of the trial.
* Tell jurors about the particular law which applies to the case in question.
* Ask the jury to choose a foreman/woman.
All the jury must agree on a verdict, if this is not possible then the judge will take a majority verdict.
The majority of people doing jury service will be required to sit at more than one case.

There are many advantages and disadvantages of using a jury to decide the outcome of a criminal case, some of the advantages are:
The

Essay On Jury Trial
A trial can be deemed unfair if the jury is swayed by emotions. Strong emotions such as prejudice, disgust, confusion, vengeance and stubbornness
can affect the outcome of a case. If emotions change the outcome rather than actual evidence presented to the jury, the trial will be unfair to the
defendant. To point out, many people believed that Damien Echols was guilty because he dressed and acted differently than everyone else. He
was a target for prejudice. As Tom Waits said "The worst things you can be in the justice system are being poor and different, and these boys were
both." Echols considered himself as a Wiccan which was not normal at the time, he also read books that were said to be satanic. All of the boys
were of poor families. But unlike rich people, they cannot pay their way out of prison. It was mentioned that the boys were called "white trash".
Echols said that they would be thrown in jail and forgotten because they were no one important. Another point is that John Fogleman tried to make
the jury feel a sense of disgust with Damien Echols about keeping a dog's skull in his room. As a side note many people in Arkansas keep the heads
of deer and mount them on the wall as a trophy. Keeping a dog's skull should not be too uncommon. The jurors seemed to completely mark the parents
off the list of suspects. They... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Jessie stated that he was repeating what Gary Gitchell said so that the questioning would end. But there were many imperfections in Misskelley's
"confession". During the trial Gitchell dismissed it as confusion when Jessie said the boys were tied up with rope. After Jessie was taken to jail after
the trial he later stated that he did not commit the murders, that he only wanted the questioning to stop. If the courts are willing to go along with false
confessions then more innocent people will be imprisoned while the real offender is

Deprivation Of The Benefits Of Trial By Jury
Barbara Terry
Donald Bloom
English 102
16 October 2014
Deprivation of the benefits of Trial by Jury
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury."
This is one of the most supreme points written in the founding principles of our Declaration of Independence according to the American founding
fathers, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. This text in the
Declaration of Independence explicitly upbraids King George III for depriving the people's rights to a trial by jury. American law is focused around
centuries of English common law, the collected assemblage of laws that are focused around common sense judgment and decisions and which
safeguard the privileges of the individuals. Property proprietorship is a major right of free individuals, and common law creates the tenets we keep. In
a lawful argument about property, citizens have a right to ajury trial.
The right to a trial by a jury follows its ancestry all the way back to 1297, around the time the Magna Carta was established. By the middle of the
sixteenth century, the jury had effectively undertaken the structure it holds today in government courts and the dominant part of state courts–twelve
subjects were evoked to sit under a vow in judgment of the villain implications against one of their companions. Like the Sixth Amendment 's
certification of a jury trial for those blamed for a wrongdoing, the Seventh Amendment ensures a jury

The Trial On The Jury System
Introduction
Have you ever been to a trial or have you seen a trial on the television? Have you ever saw that group of people that were sitting in a box? Or have you
ever heard someone say they have to go do jury duty? You may wondered what jury duty is. Well jury duty is service as a member of ajury in a court of
law. You may say well what is a jury? A jury is a body of people sworn to give to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to
them in court. In this paper we will talk about three counties and how their jury system goes. And if they don't have one we will talk about what they
do for their judicial system. Jury system makes the court's trial easier and fair.
United States Jury SystemThe United ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
After the reviewing of the questionnaire the court will randomly select those who will be summoned to jury duty. (Criminal Find Law) Everyone
must do jury duty once every 12 months. There will be a $1500 fine if you do not show up and perform your duty. There is two reasons on why you
could be excused. One reason is if they have a physical or mental impairment. The other reason is if attending will cause a financial burden. (US
Courts) To be on jury duty you won't have to understand English 100% you must understand it enough to be able to know what is going on. The court
uses the common language. But if you cannot understand the language at all then you could call in or have someone to translate for you when you call
into the local jury department. There is a chance that you will need to go down there to prove that you don't speak the language. (California State Law)
Mexico Jury System
Mexico did not commonly use the jury system. The judicial protection is provided by the Writ of Amparo. The Writ of Amparo allows the person
convicted in the court of a local judge to appeal to one of the federal judges. There trial system is based on by the Napoleonic Code. It consist of a sees
of fact gathering hearings. The judges are appointed for life. (Mex Online) The record of the proceedings is not available to the public. That was
forced on March 21, 1804. The legal system came about in 1806. In 1808 a code of criminal instruction was

Argumentative Essay On Jury Trial
"The presumption of innocence's is the bedrock of our foundation; its what separates us from all the other countries in the world. So as of now you
have heard no evidence, could you vote?" My boss, the defense attorney, started asking the 40 potential jurors and one after another, "I haven't heard
anything, guilty."
His frustration grew as he asked each individually. Finally an elder woman replied, "Well if you say she's presumed innocent then I guess not guilty."
After further questioning and narrowing the panel to the 12 jurors it clicked that voir der is single handedly the most important part of a jury trial. Its in
that time that you get to really start fighting for your client to allow them the best chance of not getting swept into a potential miscarriage of justice.
The trial was long and hard fought with countless objections, meetings and research by my boss and his associate to insure we had done everything we
could to prove her innocence. Throughout the trial having spend countless hours with our client the depth and severity of this accusation really hit
home when a single mother looking at seven years in prison potentially giving her three children to foster ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The tension in the courtroom was astronomical when not to long after they came back saying they reached a verdict. It was like time stood still as
they slowly passed the papers to our judge and the tension was rising. Slowly the judge reads, "we the jury, find the defendant, not guilty." And just
like that an overwhelming sensation of relieve filled my body. This women just got her life back, going home to her three children and hopefully
never having to see us again. In all, it was the most memorable experience I have been apart of. This is when I knew I was home. It solidified the
fact that I had always wanted to be an attorney so I can give people the second chance and the representation we all

Speech For The Jury Trial
"Gentlemen of the jury, thank you for listening so intently to this trial. I know you care about our community, and that you will bring justice to the
end of this sad story. My client, Mr. Baumer, is an innocent man. People say that he poisoned Slade with wood alcohol, but this is not the case. Slade
refused to pay his bills and he bullied

Jury Trial Analysis Essay
Jury Trial Analysis
Fenisa Robinson
CJA–364
October 1, 2012
John Huskey Jury Trial Analysis
In the United States of America, the criminal justice system is based on the adversarial system or common law system. An adversarial trial allows
the accused or defendant to be given a fair chance to prove his or her innocence. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that
the defendant is to be given a fair chance to oppose the prosecution, have witnesses to help with his or her defense, face and question the
complainant, and for his or her case to be heard by a group of people who are unbiased and impartial. This group is known as the trial jury.
Jury Selection. To start the process of jury selection, a group of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Following the testimony of a witness for the prosecution, the defense attorney has a chance to cross–examine him or her. The defense attorney will ask
the witnesses for the prosecution several questions to establish doubt in the case. If the defense attorney is successful in establishing doubt of the
defendant's guilt, the attorney can asked for the trial to be dismissed. In the event the judge denies the request to dismiss and the defense believes that
his line of question has in fact, established reasonable doubt, he or she can rest the case. At this point, the defense does not have to call any witnesses.
Defense and Prosecution Rebuttal. Just as the prosecution has a chance to establish his or her case by way of calling eye witnesses or expert
witnesses, the defenses is granted the same opportunity if he or she decides not to rest the case. The defense attorney can call any witnesses he or she
may have to support the defendant's case as well as allowing the defendant to testify on his or her behalf. In addition to the eye witnesses and expert
witnesses, the defense may opt to call on a character witness. A character witness is a person who has known the defendant for quite some time and can
attest to the defendant's upright moral temperament and judgment. Immediately after the defense has called his last witness, the prosecution has the
opportunity to cross examine any of the defense's witnesses. Subsequently, the prosecution can attempt to provide evidence that

Jury Trial Advantages
Introduction:
Juries form an important part of our legal system and are made up of ordinary people from our community. A jury trial is a legal proceeding in
which a jury, made up of twelve individuals, makes a decision that then directs the actions of a judge. A jury is randomly chosen from a list of voter
registrations and driver licence ID renewals. Once the jury is chosen they participate in both criminal trials and civil trials. In criminal trials the jury
hears evidence and makes a decision as to whether the person is guilty or innocent. Civil trials that need juries are usually defamation proceedings. But
are twelve heads better than one? During this report, I will critically analyse and evaluate the two conflicting viewpoints contained in the ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This can be seen as one of the advantages to a jury trial. Another advantage, is that the decision is made by twelve people rather than just a judge. A
jury trial may not always be the best choice though; there are many disadvantages to a jury trial. A jury trial, may consist of people such as,
construction workers or stay at home mums and therefore, they may not be able to understand complex laws and forensic evidence. This is one of
the biggest disadvantages to having a jury trial. Another disadvantage is that every juror has their own personal beliefs that can affect their decision.
For example, someone who comes to court not well dressed may already be considered guilty in jurors that hold appearance in high regard. The jury
system itself has many problems and issues. For example, some trials can last for days or even months and therefore the jury must remain an audience
for the entire duration listening to arguments and evidence. Sometimes it becomes too long for them. Katrina Blowers, a journalist working for ABC
news, has often seen jurors falling asleep on the job, others distracted by passing notes to each other,

The Jury System Should Be Scrapped For Criminal Trials
"THE JURY SYSTEM SHOULD BE SCRAPPED FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS IN NSW"
Through various analytical investigations and research, it can be proposed "the jury system should be scraped for criminal trials in NSW". As jurors
are incapable of apprehensively comprehending evidence and are vulnerable to being biased by their personal prejudices and excessive media
publicity. Correspondingly, many fall victim of escaping trials due to their elongated processes. Conversely, many dispute in contradiction suggesting
juries reflect democratic regimes and ensure the most appropriate verdict is reached as they contemplate on society's ethics, morals and values often
absent in judge–alone trials.
Firstly, the role of the jury is too 'listen to the evidence ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The concept of the accused being assessed by their 'peers' is very appropriate as they judge merely based on the morals and principles of the
society making the law more valid and binding. Whereas, 'leaving the judgment to someone who doesn't necessarily live in the real world' (Love,
2014) may not be so appropriate. Also the' danger of getting rid of jury trials is that there will be a perception that someone who is an elite judge is
going to be deciding matter, someone that may be in touch with the ordinary community' (Harvey 2011). Hence, the jury system ensures the
communities ethics, values and morals are implied and safeguards the law is applied in a way 'that fits in with what the society expects' (Love 2014).
In opposition, many suggest "juries should be scrapped for criminal trials in NSW" as jurors are often vulnerable of being swayed by excessive
media publicity. This is most prevalent in 'high profile cases, where it is extremely if not impossible to find jurors who haven't already read about
circumstances surrounding it in the media and formed their own opinions about the matter' (Nedium, 2015). One such case which strengthens this
argument is R v Gittany [NSWSC 138] where the defendant was charged for murder of Lisa Cecilia Harnum under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986
section 132 (NSW) (LIAC,2013). Although

Robert Mueller Jury Trial
A grand jury witness serving in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation is speaking out against what appears to be a never–ending witch
hunt, according to The Daily Caller. In an op–ed published on the conservative website, Ronn Torossian revealed Mueller's secret tactics and
operations, writing that, "enough is enough." Tosossian, a public relations executive, said he testified before Mueller's gran jury on Dec. 15, 2017,
in Washington, D.C. Tosossian said he was of interest to Mueller because he was approached in 2012 by Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's
former campaign manager, and Rick Gates, an associate to Manafort, about doing public relations work for the Ukrainian government. Writing that
he is the president of a large PR firm in New York City, Tosossian said he rejected the deal when he was reportedly told by Manafort and gates not to
report the work to the Department of Justice, which is required by FARA laws.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
government. Fully cooperating and eager to testify that he did nothing wrong, Tosossian testified in front of Mueller's gran jury. But when he began
fielding questions from Mueller's team, he immediately knew the investigation was largely predicated on potential illegal actions of Manafort and
Gates. He said Mueller and his team appear to be heavily focused on Manafort and Gates' actions years before ever briefly working for Trump's 2016
presidential campaign. Both men have been indicated on a series of tax crimes, all of which are no where near connected to Trump. "This investigation
feels like a witch hunt, Tossossian

Jury Trial Analysis Paper
By: xxxxxxxxxxCJA/364
August 18, 2014
James Secord
In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at
trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant's right to a speedy trial, the defendant's right to an impartial judge and the defendant's right to an
impartial jury.
There are six steps in the trial process; these steps include jury selection, opening statements, evidence presentation, closing arguments, charging of the
jury and deliberation of jury. Throughout this six step process, it is vital that the rights of all parties involved and respected and protected by... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This process not only ensures due process, but it also provides the best means of ensuring an impartial jury. The process provides lawyers the
opportunity to review possible jurors and gives them the opportunity to have a say in the selection process. Any jurors that the lawyers feel can be
detrimental to the case, can be removed from the jury selection process.
During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely
random; citizens get "jury Duty" notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense,
and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any
way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this
interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution ensures that the defendant has to the right to a jury of their peers. The standard for a jury is usually 12 but
the judge can alter that anywhere from 6–12 jurors; there is also two alternatives in the case there is a breech. If a jury is only made up of six jurors, the
final verdict must be based on a unanimous vote from all of the jurors.
In conclusion, I provided an

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Jury Trial
This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which
then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their
judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are "twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are
chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences." The jury
has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the
United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays "the
magistrates' courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the
criminal cases." But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a "cornerstone of the English legal system" , and it remains the standard
mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to
believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that

Trial By Jury
Trial by jury is not a new concept; it has been around since ancient times. The United States' Founding Fathers embedded the right to trial by jury in
the U.S. Constitution because King George III often denied them of the benefits of trial by jury (Shepard, 2005). Juries are needed to defend against
absolute government, but juries are not entirely fair. For something around so long, the concept of a justice system based in adversarial processes still
may be flawed. Jurors may possess implicit biases, which alter their judgments. Elek and Hannaford–Agor (2013) define implicit bias as, "an
individual's unconscious attitudes [that] introduce unjustified assumptions about other people and related evidence that can distort a person's judgment...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Egoism can be divided into two categories: psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Thomas Hobbes promoted psychological egoism, which is the
idea that all actions can be interpreted as selfishly motivated (Banks, 2013). Hobbes provided the example that pity can be interpreted as egotistical
in the sense that people pity others because they are reminded that the same thing may happen to them (Banks, 2013). Psychological egoism theorizes
the ways in which people actually behave, but on the other hand, ethical egoism theorizes the ways people ought to behave (Banks, 2013). Ethical
egoism suggests that people have no obligation other than to do what is best for them (Banks, 2013). Ethical egoism is different from Deontology
because, first, egoism allows people to be treated as a means to an end if the act promotes self–interest and, second, egoism gives wants and desires
priority over helping

Jury Trial Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Katrina Duarte

More from Katrina Duarte (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jury Trial Essay