The criminal trial with the decision of the jury: the role of the

jury and the power of the jury in decision-making

The USA jury system derived from a British practice that intended to protect
people from tyranny by the king. If there was a crime, the accused was bought to a trial
before a judge and a jury. The judge presided over the trial and served as a legal expert.
The jury was a group of ordinary people who were from the area where the crime was
committed. This system has evolved over time. The Americans included the right to a
criminal trial by jury in the Article III of the US Constitution that states that all trials
shall be by jury. This right was expanded with the 6 th Amendment: In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the state The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a jury in the 5 th,
6th and 7th Amendments.
To be eligible for jury service in most state and federal courts, a person must be
a US citizen, a resident of the geographic jurisdiction served by the court, age 18 or
older, able to speak and understand english, and not under a legal disability.
The juries are selected by a random system that contains all the citizens names
that are registered on voters list. Jurors are asked to complete some questionnaires to
determine whether they are qualified to serve. Then the court randomly selects some of
the jurors who carried out the questionnaires. After that, the attorneys ask some
questions to select the jury, in order to understand how the jurors will probably decide,
and then ask for their excuse if they are deciding against their side. The process to
determine their suitability to serve on a jury is called voir dire.
There are two types of jury: trial jury and the grand jury. For the trial jury there
is the minimum requirement of six jurors and a maximum of twelve. The criminal petit
(trial) jury is usually made up of twelve members.
The jury must decide whether the defendant has committed the crime that he is
accused. The jury decides privately without any interference from outside. The verdict
must be unanimous, but on civil trial this may not happen if the parties agree on. Each
and every member of the jury must agree in order to convict or acquit the defendant.

The Supreme Court has required less than unanimous for example 10-2. The decision
has to be beyond reasonable doubt, which true meaning is be damned sure. If there
is no certain the defendant must be acquit.
On the other hand, the grand jury has more members. Normally consist of
sixteen to twenty-three members, and the last number is more often. In this case the
grand jury determines whether there is a probable cause to believe that an individual
has committed a crime. Probable cause means sufficient reason based upon known facts
or evidence to believe a crime has been committed.

So first the individual must present to the grand jury, and then, if the grand jury
decides that there is probable cause, the defendant must go to trial to decide if hes
guilty or not guilty.
The jury has a very important role to decision-making. The jury decides based on what
they hear and what they believe.
Jury Nullification happens when a jury ignores the law. Jurors disagree with a
particular law, and even if the evidence shows that the defendant is guilty the jury may
acquit the accused. Here is the big difference between a trial with or without a jury. In a
trial without a jury the judge decision is based on evidence and the law.
Jurors are easily influenced by lawyers and their techniques, by calling to the
moral side and bending the truth so that the jurors may see themselves in the role of the
accused. An emotional jury can actually be good if you have some problems with
obeying the law. Juror may be tempted to reach a quick verdict in order to go home.
There are different opinions about the jury system. Some think it is beneficial to
have a trial with a jury and others think that only damages the system.

One of the most controversial cases where the jury system was crucial was the
case of O.J. Simpson. In 1995, he was acquitted of the 1994 murder of Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ronald Goldman. This case was spoken around the world. Simpson was
charged with their deaths and subsequently acquitted of all criminal charges in a
controversial criminal trial. The trial jury unanimously acquitted him of any crime. In
this case the jury had a very important role given that the evidence pointed to him to be
guilty.
Another controversial case is about the radio contest that killed Jennifer Strange.
This case was about a radio contest that was called hold you wee for a wii. The
contestant able to hold the most water would be named the winner. This case was
spoken because of the radio DJ said that the contestants had signed releases and couldn't
file a lawsuit. Jennifer was the winner but it cost her her life. The Jennifers husband
brought an action for damages on the case. Despite having a liability waiver signed the
court ruled that the husband was entitled to compensation. On October 29, 2009, after a
week of deliberations, the jury awarded the survivors of Jennifer Strange the sum of
$16,577,118 in monetary damages. People had compassion for what happened.
It must be stated that the role of the jury is very important. On the other hand
and contrary to what happens in Portugal, the judge has the power only to organize,
facilitate, and oversee a process that will render an outcome based on a fair and
impartial assessment of the evidence in the case. In Portugal the judge is who makes the
decision to convict or not. This judge is a person qualified in law who studied judiciary

for a long period of time and is able to make any decision that considers human
freedom.
It is true that life is not just about laws, but for me it becomes difficult to believe
that the power is given to an ordinary person to decide about my life. The decision to
convict is in the hands of a person who can condemn me just because I remind him of
his ex-wife. I know I'm being quite linear and that this does not happen like that, but it
is a possibility. But I do not believe that a judge always decides correctly and that it is
the correct system. I believe that the law is a very complex system and that nothing is
100 % reliable. Sometimes the jury acquitted because the accused is white and the
victim is black, and sometimes the jury makes de correct decision based on moral
values that override the law.
I learned a lot from this course that made me see the other system of law and its
implications. Something I will never forget, if I am guilty I want a trial with jury if I am
innocent want a trial by judge.

Bibliography

Anatomy of a jury trial E-journal USA

I hereby certify that I have made this work independently and without outside help and
did not use other bibliographical resources than the ones referred in the paper.

Ana Catarina Ea

N21968
University of Lisbon