Spanish Quiz

flash cards
Spanish 101
The Composition of the Jury
The modern jury is composed of a maximum of twelve members. Typically, in
murder and treason, the jury consists of 12 members, while in other criminal trials,
it may be nine.

In civil matters the jury often consists of nine members.

The Nature of the Jury
The jury system is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to
secure fairness in the justice system. members. Before this century, the jury system
was widely believed to be one of the chief safeguards of right against abuse of the
judicial powers.
Trial by jury was felt to be an essential and inviolable right, as a security blanket to
ensure the liberties of citizens as against the state.

Therefore, the notion of a jury system as an essential feature of the democratic

process is not only contemporary one. Essentially, the jury’s purpose is to be the
sole judges of facts. In contemporary times we believe that, to be judges of fact,
one must come to court ignorant of the facts. Impartiality in adjudicating is therefore
based on ignorance of the facts.
This means, if any juror has knowledge for the facts, he must state this publicly.
The need for impartiality is demonstrated in the case of Howe v R.

Here, one of the juror had been present at a previous conviction of the accused.
This was sufficient ground to establish bias.
The Special Jury
A part from the common jury, outline above, there is in some jurisdiction, such as
Jamaica, what is known as a ‘special jury’. This jury usually consists of person with
special qualifications, whether profession or trade, which relate to the matter being
tried. The special jury may be used at the discretion of the judge for certain
important or complicated civil cases where it is felt that specialized or technical
knowledge on the part of jurors is essential for the efficient dispensing of justice. In
the cases of special jury system (see Jury Act of Jamaica s 24), strong reason must
be given before the court exercises its discretion. This was confirmed in the case of
Police Commissioner v Hinds. This is why it is perhaps seldom employed, although
given the complex matters involving finance, telecommunications and the like and
given that judges may not have such expertise, the need for it may have increased.
The Right to Trial by Jury
Despite the importance of jury trials to administration of justice and the democratic
process, there is no right to trial by jury in all cases. In the Caribbean, as
elsewhere, trial by jury seems to be diminishing in importance, at least for certain
type offences. There are several reasons for this decline. Two of the most important
are the rapid growth in the volume of litigation and a general appreciation that juries
are both unpredictable and infallible.
Bahamas and Bermuda are the only two countries in the Commonwealth
Caribbean which has enshrined a constitutional right to trial by jury.

In R v Stone, the Jamaican court of Appeal disagreed that trial without a jury
violated any constitutional right, as trial by jury was not expressly or impliedly
entrenched in any provisions of the Constitution. Jury trials have undergone further
scrutiny in the region.

In Re Eric Dariem, A Juror, the appellant was summoned for jury service in the
circuit court of Jamaica. He asked to be excused on the ground that his conscience
did not permit him ‘to take part in judging a person’. He was refused exemption on
the basis that that was not a legitimate ground for exemption under the jury law.
Challenges to the Jury
There are two types of challenges to the jury, ‘challenge for cause’ and ‘preemptory
challenge’. A reason for the challenge is not necessary when the right to
preemptory challenge is being exercised, but a good reason, such as suspicion of
bias, must be advanced before one may challenge or question a juror for a cause.
A limited number of preemptory challenges are permitted for each matter. The
conditions for challenging jury selection are expressed under statute.

A juror may also be challenged for cause. This is challenge without numerical
restriction, on the part of either the defence or the prosecution, alleging some good
reason why the juror should not be empanelled. Common reason are bias on
grounds of knowledge of the defendant, some other involve with the case, or
prejudice such as race or pre-trial publicity.
Discharging the Jury
It is within the discretion of the jury to decide whether a juror’s misconduct, irregular
behavior or circumstances sufficiently prejudice the trial enough to discharge him.
Every accused in the commonwealth Caribbean has a right to a fair trial.
Discharging jurors or juries who may prejudice that trial is in keeping with this
principle.

The case of Gibson v R ; here, after the commencement of a murder trial, the court
discover that, one of the jurors was the brother of the deceased. The juror was
immediately discharged and the trial heard by the remaining 11 jurors. On appeal
the court held, that a fundamental principle was raised, i.e. that justice must not
only be done but must be seen to be done. However, in this instance, the court did
not find that the right to a fair trial had been prejudiced.
In certain cases, on grounds of pre-trial prejudice, such as where there has been
wide spread publicity of a case, an entire jury may be prevented from hearing the
trial. This is in situation where the courts finds that the minds of the jury have been
so prejudiced, against an accused as to prevent them from coming to an impartial
decision. Where, this happens the trial may even be moved to another town or city
in an attempt to overcome this prejudice.
Advantages of Trial by Jury
1. The assertion that juries are poor because of poor educational standards, and
their resultant inability to understand questions of law, is exposed when one
recalls their sole function as arbitrators of facts. The jury’s primary tool is
common sense. Surely one does not need formal training to acquire this. Is
education really necessary to separate fact from laws? It is more likely that
more highly educated juror will place more emphasis on procedures and
instruction than those with only elementary education. Those with elementary
education is likely to be more interested in opinions, testimony, and personal
experiences, but it is in fact these which concern the jury.

2. Similarly, the lack of legal training on the part of jurors allows them to bring a
fresh outlook, as opposed to the professional opinion of a judge who may have
become hardened and cynical after years of experience.
3. The sheer size of the jury is also an advantage in that it is unlikely that individual
prejudice could significantly affect the verdict. Both the jury and judges can fall prey to
social, political and other biases but, with the jury system, the citizen has additional
protection. His fate is not being decided by a single individual. It may even be of
psychological significance to the judge, who is relieved of this heavy burden.

4. The jury’s size also means that there is safety in numbers with regard to potential
corruption in the system. Indeed, the image of the infallible an incorruptible judge is
erroneous. Recently, in the commonwealth Caribbean there has been instances of
corrupt judges. Trial by jury can therefore uphold independence and integrity of the jury
system.

5. Another important feature of the jury system is that it can dispose of ‘hard cases’
without changing the law. Where it seems that the proper application of legal principles
lead to a conclusion of guilt, but the verdict does not reflect this, a judicial precedent is
not created. Verdicts and judicial pronouncement make no impact on the law itself as
do binding precedents emanating from a judge.
Disadvantages of Trial by Jury
1. It has been said that the jury system lacks transparency as the members cannot be
held accountable for their decisions as they are not required to give reasons as in
the case of judicial judgments. If the members of the jury were to behave in a
perverse or improper manner it would never be known.
2. Jurors may place too much emphasis on their feelings allowing their decisions to be
affected by sympathies for the defendant or the victim instead of making their
decision on the evidence alone.
3. The first kink in the system is the selection process, with a wide list of exemptions
this results in a narrow pool of eligible persons who can be selected to sit on the
panel. Most public officials, lawyers and persons who provide essential services,
such as doctors and soldiers, are exempt from jury service. This has an impact on
the composition of the jury and raises the question whether the jury represents the
defendant’s ‘peers’ and attains a true representation of society. Jury qualifications
result in both gender and class inequality which results in a composition which
seldom represents the defendant. The unrepresentative composition of the jury is
further compounded by the small multicultural societies found in the Caribbean.
4. Jurors may also be affected by prejudice and bias. It is believed that juries are
greatly influenced by the appearance, class and manner of defendants and
witnesses. For example, the negative view of Rastafarians. Jurors may be willing to
let their prejudices make up their minds before the trial even begins.

5. The jurors’ engagement during the trial which may be affected by boredom or
willingness to be present is also a cause for concern. It is quite possible for
decisions to be rushed because juror’s want to go home.