American movie "Twelve Angry Men"
Twelve Angry Men is a 1957 American black-and-white film produced by MGM. The film is about a 12-member jury. The series explores American legal justice and juries in depth, and is considered one of the most important films in the history of American cinema.
United States: Slum slums as jurors
Oolong Jury 1995 – A construction worker named Carl Wayne is arrested on suspicion of maiming seven lives, and a trial over Carl's guilt begins. Tommy, a slum slum who has no work, accommodation and food, was unexpectedly selected for jury and placed by the judiciary in a holiday hotel.
"Oolong Jury"
In order to stay at the Holiday Inn for a few more days, the normal trial was disrupted by Tommy's brain "short circuit". Tommy's "publicity advertisement" for the Holiday Inn in front of the TV camera, while attracting a large number of guests for the Holiday Inn, also paid himself for staying in the presidential suite. A person who enjoys the treatment of the president's suite, Tommy does not want to end the trial...
Stills from the Russian film The Twelve Angry Men
Russia "12 Angry Men - The Great Judgment"
This film is a remake of "12 Angry Men" filmed in Hollywood in 1957, which sets the background of the story in the context of the far-reaching and irreconcilable ethnic contradictions between Russia and Chechnya, making a story about the judicial system, the legal system, and human nature's unremitting pursuit and persistence in rationality and truth deeper, broader and more sincere.
Movie "The Runaway Jury 2003"
In the wake of an office shooting in New Orleans, the gun manufacturers were brought to court, accusing them of producing weapons that led to numerous incidents of violence, and he asked the court to rule that the sale of weapons was an offence.
The case went to trial as scheduled, at which point a mysterious figure, Nick East, a jury member in the case, began a black-box operation, trying to influence other jury members in the gun-making case so that they could vote in the "right way".
Meanwhile, Easter's girlfriend, Mary, also wanted to lure two lawyers into the case and bribed the jury with millions of dollars to get the court to annul the interrogation of the defendant's gun manufacturer. So, East and Mary joined forces and cleverly manipulated the gun trafficking case, and the 12-member jury was in chaos and completely out of control...
"Counting Dead Grass" - Chen Mengji (Zhou Xingchi), a late Qing Dynasty teacher, specializes in making fun of people and has made many enemies. The orphan Ah Huan (Ge Minhui) defects to the teacher Chen Mengji (Zhou Xingchi) and worships him as a teacher. Later, because Ah Huan fell in love with Water Lotus (Qiu Shuzhen) and quarreled with his master, he fled Hong Kong in a rage. Ho Chung (Norma Lam), the son of Hong Kong tycoon Sir Ho Sai (Chung King Fai), discovers that Ah Huan is his half-brother Nian Xi and frames Ah Huan for swallowing up the family property (Chan Ho). Ah Huan turned to master for help, and Chen Mengji was dumbfounded by the three-inch tongue, but the jury had been bribed, and Mengji wanted to find a way to bring the dead back to life...
Chinese mainland The Twelve Citizens
Adapted from the 1957 American film Twelve Angry Men. The film was released on May 15, 2015 in Chinese mainland. The film tells the story of students who did not pass the final exam of the common law course in a university of political science and law in the summer. They formed a moot Western court, serving as judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other roles, and tried a controversial "20-year-old rich second generation father killing" case in society. A jury of 12 parents of the students was formed.
1. Jury system
Traditionally, scholars have often divided the jury system in a broad sense into two types according to the differences in judicial technology: the jury system (narrow sense) and the trial participation system (also known as the mixed court system). The jury system (narrow sense) refers to the civilian participation system in which jurors and professional judges have a clear division of duties in criminal trials, with jurors deciding on factual issues and professional judges deciding on legal issues.
Trial participation system
Also known as the mixed court system, it refers to a system of civilian participation in criminal trials in which professional judges and jurors jointly decide the factual and legal issues of the case. Its representative countries are France and Germany.
In general, anglo-American law scholars tend to oppose the jury system and the trial system, arguing that the difference between the two is not only a pure technical design problem, but also includes many aspects such as value setting and function realization. In contrast, civil law scholars are more inclined to unify the two, believing that although there are some differences between the trial system and the jury system, the commonalities between the two are greater than the differences, and can be studied as a theoretical community.
In fact, we can divide the jury system (in a broad sense) more microscopically and accurately: 1. The jury system, represented by common law countries and Spain, Russia, etc.; 2, the typical trial system, represented by France, Belgium, etc.; 3, the atypical trial system, represented by Germany, China, etc.
2. The historical origin of the jury system
Ancient Greece and Rome were the cradles of the emergence of the jury system
The concept of jury first arose in ancient Greece in the sixth century BC, when Athens was under the reign of the emerging commercial aristocrat Solon.
In order to limit the monopoly of the old nobles with hereditary privileges over judicial trials and to alleviate the contradictions between the nobles and the commoners, Solon implemented legal reforms and established a court of juries of citizens called "Helaiea", which was very important in Athenian politics, exercising supreme judicial power, partial supervision and administrative power, while also interfering in legislation. The jury court usually consisted of Athenian citizens elected by lottery, and each Athenian citizen could become a juror (there were no judges in Athens, and jurors were also known as "citizen judges"). Jurors selected by lot are also drawn by lot again in order to decide which jurors will eventually form a jury court to hear a specific case, and the outcome of the trial is based on the opinions of the jurors, and a simple majority can form a judgment.
509 BC – In 508 BC, the commoner leader Christines was elected consul. In Cristinius's legislative reforms, it was stipulated that every citizen had the right to vote and participate in the government, including the right of citizens to be elected as jurors, and at that time it was stipulated that each tribe would elect a number of jurors from among Athenian citizens over the age of thirty to participate in the investigation of major cases, after which a committee under the jury court would conduct a fair trial.
By 451 B.C., after Pericles's judicial reforms, citizens' participation in jury activities was more regulated than before: each year, on the basis of six hundred men per tribe, six thousand men were selected by lot from among male citizens who had reached the age of thirty to form a jury court, Herrier. Within the jury court, there are ten jurors, each of which has 500 formal jurors and 100 alternate jurors, who hear various litigation cases and implement a majority voting system, and the jurors also have attendance allowances. Helier is both the first instance judge of felony cases and the appellate body of other judicial organs, as well as part of the legislative work and has the final approval power over the resolutions of the Popular Assembly. Herrière's appeal judgment was final and, once in force, there could be no further prosecution and trial.
In 402 B.C., when Piso dorus was consul, the rules for jury proceedings were further detailed and stricter: jurors were selected by drawing lots, and anyone over thirty years of age who had not been in debt to the treasury and had not lost civil rights had the right to serve as jurors. Any unqualified person who serves as a juror is prosecuted and tried by a jury court. There are generally ten jurors, and the jurors selected by the first draw of lots are assigned to these ten courts by drawing lots again, each of which has five hundred members and each has a chairman. When a public case must be submitted to a juror of one thousand members, two courts of five hundred members are united; when the most important case is submitted, there is a juror of fifteen hundred members, that is, the three courts are to be brought together. The final verdict of the case was made by means of voting, the ball was made of copper with a shaft worn in the center, half of the ball center of the ball was perforated, and such balls belonged to the plaintiff; the other half was not perforated and belonged to the defendant. There are also two bottles in court, one made of copper and one of wood, the former for valid votes and the latter for unused votes. Every juror who attends the trial must vote, and the result of the vote is won by a majority of votes, and when the votes are equal, the defendant wins. If necessary, jurors also have to estimate the damages and vote in the same way. When the juror's duties are completely fulfilled, a certain amount of remuneration can be received.
In this ancient Greek method of adjudication, due to the extremely large number of judges, the probability of bribery or other corrupt acts was almost zero, which was conducive to preventing monopolies of power and promoting the simple democratic spirit to a certain extent. However, such a large jury team must make both the determination of the facts of the case and the ruling on the application of law in the trial of the case, which has many serious defects in practice, and the trial results are often determined by the collective likes and dislikes of the jury subject, which is very easy to cause misjudgment. For example, socrates' death was a misjudgment caused by a large jury collectively infected by emotions.
Ancient Rome
During the Republican period (450 BC), a jury court modeled on the jury trial system of ancient Greece was established, mainly for hearing major litigation cases such as bribery and post reading, called the "Permanent Criminal Court". The court headed by the Supreme Magistrate and selected 300 to 450 jurors, although jurors had certain qualifications and had to be nobles, knights, or wealthy slave owners of the Senate.
When trying a specific case, 30-50 people are also selected by lot from these 300-450 jurors to form a jury, and the jury has the right to put forward a voting opinion at the end of the lawsuit, that is, to express exoneration or punishment, and the ruling is also based on a majority judgment system, while the supreme magistrate does not participate in the voting.
By the time of the Roman Empire, roman emperors found the jury too powerful to control and abolished the system in 352 AD, after which Roman judges combined factual determination and legal adjudication.
Although the "jury system" of ancient Greece and Rome did not have the ordinary rules recognized by the jury system in the modern sense, it was an important part of the litigation system that constituted ancient Greece and Rome, reflecting the ancient simple city-state direct democracy. More importantly, the operation of this "jury system" in the sense of origin in ancient Greece and Rome made it a tradition for non-professionals to participate in judicial proceedings and a source of the modern jury system.
The modern jury system originated in Britain
Traditional mainstream view: the information survey system derived from the Frankish kingdom
The information survey system was a dictatorial tool established by the Frankish royal family to follow the example of the treasury system of the Roman Empire to investigate relevant information, especially financial information, within the kingdom. This system spread to Normandy through the Franks and arrived in England after William, Duke of Normandy, conquered the British Isles. The challenge of opinion
(1) The British jury system or some similar system of Anglo-Saxon origin or Scandinavia
2) The British jury system could not have originated from the Frankish system of information investigation
(Some European legal historians have found no information related to the Frankish royal information survey system in the relevant literature.)
The Jury system in England has been in constant flux since its inception (twelfth century).
1215 was a crucial year in the history of the development of the jury system. The two meetings held by secular and religious circles this year have influenced the development process of the jury system. The rebellious barons met to sign the Magna Carta. In the Charter, the Barons approved the method of prosecution by jury (Cap. 38); Whether it was the barons' intentions or not. The Fourth Rutland Synod, held that year, issued a ban on clergy from participating in the Divine Judgment. This dealt a fatal blow to the divine judgment law that was popular at the time. The Theocratic Law was effectively abolished, and its function had to be exercised by finding a substitute. The jury as an effective prosecution body is a ready-made alternative.
From the 13th century to the 18th century, Britain gradually formed a "jury" mechanism composed of 12 ordinary people to conduct trials, and around this mechanism established and improved the corresponding rules of evidence, procedural procedures, criminal law norms and legal professional ethics, and the question of whether the defendant is guilty can only be decided by the jury.
Spread of jury system
Passive succession of the British colonies
(1) Colonists may achieve effective judicial control over the colonies through the jury system;
(2) The jury system also provided a certain privilege for the "British pioneers" who were deeply rooted in the colonies at that time, so that they could circumvent the local customary laws and regulations and guarantee their dignity as citizens of the British Empire.
Status: Jurors have been a success in North America and Australia and continue to this day, while in India and Africa they have all but died out and are now largely replaced by mixed courts.
Why: The jury system played a different political role in the colonies' autonomy
In the United States, the jury system is in a sense an important tool for the state to gain independence. The outstanding contribution of the grand jury and the small jury in the struggle for the American independence revolution laid a good mass foundation for the jury system. Thus, jury is in the minds of the American people a tool against colonial authoritarianism, not a tool of colonial rule.
In the Australian (South Wales) colony, obtaining jury power meant changing from "place of execution" to "colonial power", so that jury was both a symbol of "glory and dignity" and a guarantee of "equality and freedom" (rebellion against the military courts of the time). In addition, due to the tortuous development of the jury system in the Australian colonies, the Australian people cherish this hard-won system even more.
In the colonies of India and Africa, the jury system has always had a strong colonialist and racist overtones. The sole purpose of juries in these colonies was colonial control and racial slavery.
Active transplantation in continental Europe
After the French Revolution in 1789, the British jury system first landed in France, and began to spread and develop throughout the European continent through France. (Other countries in Continental Europe did not refer directly to the British model when transplanting juries," but to the French model.) ）
After entering the 20th century, most countries in Europe (including Mainland France) have successively reformed the French jury system, and the original "jury court" has gradually become a "collegial panel" composed of professional judges and jurors, and the decision power of conviction is no longer exclusive to jurors, but shared by professional judges and jurors, and the "jury system" has become a "participation system".
Scope of application
In the early days, the courts that applied jury trials were mainly circuit courts and quarterly trial courts. However, the Courts Act of 1971 abolished both types of courts and replaced them with criminal courts. As such, the Criminal Court is the jury court of the English Criminal Court System.
In British criminal proceedings, there are three categories of offences: public prosecution, dictate and summary conviction. In accordance with the practice of Trial Jurisdiction in England, the first-instance criminal cases accepted by the Criminal Court are public prosecution cases (about 20% of the first-instance criminal cases heard by the Criminal Court) and some dictable cases (about 80% of the first-instance criminal cases heard by the Criminal Court). The latter mainly include theft, burglary, destruction of property and a number of serious crimes against the person.
The Criminal Trials Act of 2003 imposes some degree of restriction on the scope of application of jurys. For example, "In some serious or complex fraud cases, if the judge believes that the length and complexity of the case may overburden the jury, he may decide to use a trial without a jury for the criminal case." The judge may also make the above decision based on the consideration of judicial interests" and "if there is a real risk of bribery on the jury, the judge may also decide to dissolve the jury and the case shall be tried without a jury". In addition, of course, in the cases heard by the Criminal Court, about 70 per cent of the accused in the cases plead guilty. In a small number of other cases, the prosecution has been acquitted for failing to provide evidence or because the judge considered "no defence to answer". As a result, the number of criminal cases heard by jury has been greatly reduced, with nearly 30,000 cases tried each year.
3. Jurors
Negative elements:
Persons under the age of 21, who do not reside in their home country, who do not know English, who have hearing impairments, who are mentally ill, who have committed a felony, who are required to care for a minor under the age of twelve, who have a teacher who has held a principal job during the semester, or who are associated with the plaintiff or defendant shall not be selected. Specific occupations: doctors, nurses, lawyers, law professors, police officers, firefighters and other public officials.
Positive requirements: U.S. citizens who are at least 21 years of age in the jurisdiction of the court where the crime occurred.
Responsibilities and Obligations of Jurors
Jurors keep their deliberations confidential. Not even to your own family.
It is usually possible to go home. Important cases are quarantined.
You can't read newspapers and TV news. Cases cannot be discussed with non-jurors.
The deliberative forum shall not be left without authorization.
Misconduct will result in disqualification from jury trial.
4. Formation of a jury
The first stage of the trial proceedings: the arraignment proceedings
If the accused makes a guilty plea, the court does not need to call a jury and goes directly to the sentencing process. The guilty plea may be withdrawn until the verdict is pronounced.
If the accused pleads not guilty, the trial moves on to the next stage and the court will immediately convene a jury to proceed with the trial in accordance with the formal indictment procedure.
After the announcement of voter registration, the Voter Registrar in the region shall provide the Lord Chancellor with a voter register of the corresponding number and shall clearly indicate on the register citizens who are under 18 years of age or over.
The Justices are responsible for summoning jurors to the Criminal Court to perform their duties and for determining the timing and number of participants in the hearing. The order to convene is served in writing by post or by a special person, with an explanation of the constitution and the provisions of the law relating to the qualifications and obligations of the jury. Citizens who are called to act as jurors must appear in court on the date and time limit required by the notice or the relevant official, or they will be fined. However, if the citizen is being called to act as a juror for the first time, failure to arrive at the court as required by the notice is permitted. The relevant officials shall make a second convocation in the same manner. If the court needs to form a jury on an ad hoc basis or if the number of jurors is insufficient, a special summons may be made, i.e. the judge requests, in the form of an oral summons, an appropriate person in or near the court to appear as a juror. The person concerned must be registered. If a juror fails to appear on time on the day and during the trial, or fails to appear in court after his first appearance or because of alcohol or drug abuse, he shall be fined up to the third degree and may be sentenced to summary judgment or contempt of court. However, where a citizen is unable to appear in court for legitimate reasons or is unable to appear in court because the summons order has not been served in a timely manner, he may be exempted from punishment.
Jurors appearing in court vote to select a jury for a particular case. In principle, the jury will have to re-elect only this case. The re-election process also adopts the method of voting. In general, the jury of a criminal court consists of 12 jurors. However, if a juror dies or is relieved of his obligations by the court at trial, the number of jurors may be less than 12.
Both parties may request the recusal of a juror, and only for a cause. If a party believes that a juror has an interest in the case and may affect a fair decision, or believes that a juror has racial discrimination tendencies, or believes that there are other factors that may affect fair procedure, it may exercise the right of recusal. It should be noted that judges also have the discretion to veto members of the jury to guarantee a fair trial in the case. For example, if the judge believes that the ability of a certain juror is simply not competent for the adjudication work, or that a juror is obviously hostile to the defendant, which may lead to an unfair judgment, and so on.
After rigorous screening, the final jury members shall take an oath to ensure honest and impartial performance of their duties. If for any reason the oath cannot be taken, the juror must also solemnly promise to be fair in words and deeds.
The United Kingdom strictly pursues adversary trials in criminal trials. Judges and juries are in a relatively negative position and generally do not take the initiative to investigate evidence, call witnesses and question witnesses.
After all the evidence has been presented, both the prosecution and the defense are required to make concluding statements to the jury.
After the defendant or defense lawyer makes a final statement, the presiding judge shall make a summary reminder to the juror in plain and understandable language, involving the evidence provided by the prosecution and defense, the burden of proof on various disputed issues, and so on.
The trial procedure was immediately concluded, and the jury entered the collegial room to conduct collegial deliberation and voting on the case.
5. The operation of the jury
Collegial deliberations are conducted in secret. Jurors have a duty of confidentiality and must not disclose the specific circumstances of collegiality. The parties concerned and the news media shall not have any reason to understand or probe the relevant circumstances of the collegial discussion.
Under the Jury Act 1974, a jury must make a unanimous decision within 2 hours of collegial deliberation. If no unanimous decision is reached, the judge may extend it for a further 2 hours. If, after the extension of time, the jury still does not reach an agreement, the judge may ask the jury to rule by a majority of 10 votes or more. If the jury is still unable to reach a majority decision of not less than 10 votes, the judge shall dissolve the jury and form another jury for a new trial.
In general, the jury's collegial deliberation time is quite short. According to the Criminal Court Study, in 1/3 of criminal cases, the jury deliberation time does not exceed 1 hour; in nearly 2/3 (62%) criminal cases, the jury deliberation time does not exceed 2 hours; almost 90% (88%) of criminal cases, the jury deliberation time does not exceed 4 hours; and only 1% of criminal cases, the jury deliberation time exceeds 12 hours.
Jury decisions need not contain reasons. After the jury has reached its decision, the court reopens. The judge asked the head of the jury whether there was an agreement or a majority decision. If the jury makes a negative ruling, the defendant is acquitted. If the head of the jury makes a positive decision, the judge shall make a sentencing judgment based on the guilty verdict, subject to evidence of the defendant's prior conviction and character. The judgement may be pronounced immediately or postponed and shall enter into force on the date of its rendering.
Appeals proceedings
Prior to 2003, the United Kingdom strictly adhered to the "principle of prohibition of double danger", and the prosecution could not appeal the acquittal ruling. However, if the defendant is not satisfied with the judgment of the Criminal Court, he may appeal to the Criminal Appeal Division of the Court of Appeal, but a distinction shall be made between "legal appeal", "de facto action" and "sentencing appeal".
"Legal appeal" means an appeal by an accused because a judge has erroneously instructed jurors in his or her legal instructions (e.g. an interpretation of a legal norm that is contrary to the original intent or jurisprudence of the law). However, this does not apply to the "jury repeal law" (i.e., the jury refuses to make a decision on the legal instructions of the magistrate). No need to go through the approval of the appeal, it is filed within four weeks of the verdict.
"De facto action" means an appeal to the Court of Appeal by the defendant who can prove that the jury's decision was "unsafe", for example, the defendant can provide new evidence that the jury's decision was indeed in error. However, it can only be brought with the approval of the Criminal Court (relatively rare) or the Court of Appeal.
A "sentencing appeal" means that the defendant appeals to the Court of Appeal on sentencing issues. Permission from the Court of Appeal must be obtained.
The 2003 UK Criminal Trial Act amended the "principle of prohibition of double danger" to some extent, allowing the prosecution to appeal the jury's acquittal decision. Thus, in current English law, both the prosecution and the defence have the right to appeal the jury's decision.
In addition, if a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, it may also appeal to the House of Lords, provided that two conditions are strictly met: first, the parties must prove to the Court of Appeal that the content of the appeal involves legal issues of great significance; Therefore, it is not common for appeals to the House of Lords. For example, in 1997, the House of Lords received a total of 71 appeals, of which only 11 were from criminal courts. Of the 11 criminal cases, only 2 were granted leave for appeal.
In the UK and Commonwealth countries, juries are largely no longer used in civil cases. In the United States, jury trials are possible in both criminal cases and some civil cases (primarily tort cases). For cases that require a jury, the first step is to select jurors and form a jury. The selection of jurors is often complex, and jury selection is a highly technical task. The selection of jurors is conducted under the auspices of the trial judge. The judge's aides randomly drew a list of candidates from a local voter registration manual. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the judge determines the initial number of juror candidates, sometimes as many as two or three hundred candidates.
The selection of jurors is conducted in public. At the time of selection, both the judge and the lawyers of both parties should be on the courtroom. When the judge begins to screen candidates, he or she is required to brief the candidates on the merits of the case. With the consent of the judge, others may observe in the courtroom. Jury candidates determine their seat numbers in the courtroom by drawing lots. The numbering of candidates for jury trial is important because the selection of jurors is carried out in the order of numbering. After the number is determined, the candidate is seated according to the number, and the questionnaire is filled out with the help of the judge's assistant according to the instructions of the judge's assistant. Depending on the specific case, the issues to be investigated in the questionnaire vary.
In cases of environmental litigation, the questionnaire may include "How do you see environmental protection and industrial development", "whether you have been infringed by environmental pollution", etc.; in cases of tobacco litigation, the questionnaire may include "Do you smoke", "Do your friends have smoking-related diseases", etc.; in AIDS-related lawsuits, the questionnaire may have questions such as "what do you think of homosexuality". The questionnaire will also address the relationship between the candidates and the lawyers in the case, such as whether they know which of them is known, whether they are entrusted with which of them, etc. The relationship between candidates and witnesses is also an important issue to be investigated. The questionnaire will include a list of witnesses who will appear in future proceedings. The judge and counsel for both sides will screen candidates based on the contents of these investigations. The judge may also directly question the candidate, for example, whether there are any factors that would influence him or her to make a fair decision.
The judge will remove those who do not meet the statutory requirements from the jury candidates. For example: non-U.S. citizens, criminal record, no right to vote, etc. A person who is included in the list of candidates may also submit to the judge the reasons for not being suitable to serve as a juror in the case, and request not to serve as a juror, such as suffering from illness. These grounds require corresponding evidence to prove them, and can be withdrawn with the consent of the judge. Since serving as a juror is an obligation of citizens, candidates may not withdraw without consent when the judge does not agree. According to the survey, most Americans are reluctant to serve as jurors, and delays in time and affect work and life are the main reasons. Although there is also a subsidy as a juror, the amount is small, generally around $8 to $15.
After the judge removes the ineligible candidates, the next procedure is for lawyers on both sides to screen the candidates. Counsel for one party may reject or reserve the numbered candidates according to their own needs. In ordinary cases, the number of times a lawyer exercises the veto power cannot exceed four or five times, but for special cases, it may also be 6 or 7 times, and as many as 10 times, and the number of veto exercises is determined by the judge. The composition of the jury often determines the outcome of the case. In the famous case of Rodnigjin v. Los Angeles Police, the complainant lost the case at first instance because a jury was formed in favor of the defendant. But the principle of screening is simple, that is, to exclude candidates who are unfavorable to their own parties. For the proposed candidate, the lawyers of both sides must carefully analyze the situation of the candidate. Counsel on both sides may ask questions about the candidates and judge whether to exercise the veto power based on the content of the candidates' answers. What kind of problems lawyers design is a very technical science. However, lawyers must not directly ask questions such as "how the candidate views the case". Judges must close the questions raised by lawyers, and when the questions are inappropriate, they may be rejected. If both sides' veto power is exhausted and the jury size requirement is not met — 12 jurors can only be determined by number by the judge. After the jury is determined, in order to prevent accidents, several alternate jurors are also required. Once a juror is unable to exercise jury power due to illness or other reasons, it may be replaced by an alternate juror. Jurors will wear a special juror badge. The jury badges vary from state to state, mostly round, but in different colors, some states are yellow, and some states are red and white.
Prior to the formal hearing, the judge informs the jurors in detail of the precautions in writing. Tell what can and can't be done. For example, cases involving jurors (including other jurors) may not be discussed with anyone, no room for permission to leave the courtroom, no telephones may be used without consent, timely reports to the judge if others have unlawful contact with jurors, newspapers about the case may not be read, etc. In general, jurors also cannot meet with judges alone to talk. If a judge is to be met, lawyers from both parties must also be present. Judges sometimes ask jurors to pay attention to dozens of things. Each juror signs his or her name after reading the documents, indicating that he or she understands the considerations. The jury has a coordinator and organizer, who may also be called the "head of the jury". The head of the jury is elected by all jurors.
In the trial of some major criminal and civil cases, the judge can isolate the jury from the outside world according to the situation to avoid the interference of the jurors from the outside world. The segregation of jurys is rare. Isolated jurors usually live in designated hotels, are guarded by guards, and are not allowed to leave their homes without the judge's permission. During the quarantine period, jurors cannot read newspapers, watch television, etc., in order to prevent external influence. The jury of the famous Simpson case was kept isolated from the outside world. Cases heard in foreign courts are generally tried consecutively, from the beginning of the hearing until the decision is rendered, and may not be interrupted except for statutory rest.
During the trial, the judge will give various instructions to the jury on a constant basis. For example, to point out which evidence is illegal and does not have evidentiary effect, instruct the jury that the evidence cannot be used in determining the facts, and if the jury accepts the evidence, the jury's decision is invalid.
In order for the jury to make a fair decision, any bribery of a juror is an offence, and the juror must comply with the corresponding legal provisions, and in severe cases, criminal sanctions will be imposed.
Court hearings in the United States are cross-examined, meaning that neither the judge nor the jury can directly examine witnesses in the case, but only by lawyers from both parties. The lawyer's questioning of witnesses raised by one of his own is called the main interrogation, and the questioning of the witnesses of the other party is called counter-examination. The jury learns the facts of the case through the questioning of witnesses by both lawyers, and the judge controls the cross-examination of the lawyers on both sides. Jurors cannot participate when a judge and a lawyer discuss procedural matters in a case, as the jury cannot decide procedural matters.
When witnesses on both sides have testified, the judge can ask the jury to discuss and rule on the case. The jurors initially form a ruling opinion at the plaintiff's request and then submit it to the jurors for a vote. In general, civil and criminal cases require a vote of more than 9 votes. Cases in which the murder was convicted required unanimous approval and unanimous consent. When voting, all 12 jurors were required to vote. Of course, there have been cases in history in which 1 juror was absent in litigation and 11 jurors voted still valid. In ordinary cases, if the plaintiff's claim is not established with more than 9 votes, it needs to be reconsidered by a jury until a majority ruling is formed. The jury's decision on how the facts are determined and how the verdict is formed is absolutely confidential, and even after the verdict of the case comes into effect, the jury will be punished by law for revealing the process of discussing the case. In the trial of civil compensation cases, the jury can also only make a ruling within the amount requested by the plaintiff, and cannot exceed the amount requested by the plaintiff. This is in the same spirit as the principles of debate in civil law systems. Prior to the hearing, the judge will inform the parties and the lawyers and jury of both parties that the verdict will be announced at the next hearing. At the hearing, the judge will ask the head of the jury if he has formed a ruling opinion. If an opinion is formed, the head of the delegation will announce the verdict and the result of the vote. After the head of the jury reads out the verdict, the judge will also ask the jurors one by one whether they agree or disagree. If a juror objects at this time, so that the vote against it exceeds 4 votes, the ruling will be invalid and the jury will have to reconsider.
Sixth, the value of the jury system
This system teaches all people to respect the facts of judgments and to develop a sense of rights. It teaches people to do things fairly. When everyone is judging their neighbors, they always think that in the future, it will be the neighbor's turn to judge themselves. It teaches that everyone is responsible for their own actions, because everyone may decide the fate of others, and others may also determine their own destiny.
Jury system is first and foremost a political system and, secondly, a judicial system. - Tocqueville, constitutionalist (law)
Positive reviews
1. The jury system is the carrier of people's sovereignty
As a political system, the primary value of jury system lies in the value of political democracy. Specifically, the jury system is an important way for people to participate in the exercise of sovereignty.
According to the theory of the separation of powers, the judicial power is the third type of state power juxtaposed with the executive power. At the heart of the judicial power is the judicial power. The modern jury system has long penetrated into the judicial system of most countries and has become an important system for ensuring the democratization of modern justice and the exercise of judicial power by citizens. The jury system has become one of the most universal and important judicial systems.
2) Jury is the patron saint of freedom
"Without a jury, there is no freedom." ——Bernard Schnapper
The jury system's defense of "freedom" is embodied in two aspects: on the one hand, the jury system is a barrier against judicial dictatorship; on the other hand, the jury system is also an important defender of political freedom.
1. The jury system can effectively control judicial monopoly: the status of jurors is independent; the rulings/decisions of the jury are supreme.
2. The jury system is the best adjudication mechanism for trying political cases: jurors are randomly selected and temporarily perform their duties, and can be completely neutral without interference from the influence of administrative organs; jurors are directly from society and can basically reflect the position of public opinion; it is difficult for professional judges to maintain neutrality.
3. The jury system is an effective mechanism for achieving judicial truth
"Judicial truth" refers to the discovery of the truth of the case within the framework of the judiciary. It is generally believed that "judicial truth" implies two major requirements, namely, "finding out the truth" and "justification requirements". The former is an important target of criminal proceedings, while the latter is an intrinsic ethical requirement of criminal proceedings. Thus, the process of criminal proceedings can be simply understood as "ascertaining the truth of the case by proper means". The jury system is a design of a trial system that can effectively achieve judicial truth commonly used in the two major legal systems.
1. It can effectively ensure the legitimacy of the trial procedure
(1) Principles of trial: the principle of centralized trial, the principle of rhetoric, and the principle of counter-trial;
(2) Trial results: Strengthen the independence of the adjudicator, strengthen the neutrality of the adjudicator, and strengthen the equal confrontation between the prosecution and the defense.
2. The truth of the case can be more effectively ascertained: the bias and stubbornness formed by professional judges due to long-term practice inertia can be corrected
4. The jury system is the bridge between society and the judiciary
A. Bring society closer to justice
(1) The jury system is an effective way for the public to understand the operation of the judicial system in the country. More intuitively understand the trial and adjudication process of cases, increase citizens' legal knowledge, and improve citizens' legal awareness. (Pre-trial training system)
(2) The law is not enough to be practiced, "the law can only be loved and revered if it is understood." Jury trial is an important way to promote citizens' understanding of the law.
(3) In addition to enabling citizens to better understand the law, the jury system can also enhance citizens' sense of judicial responsibility.
B. Bring the judiciary closer to society
The solution of important issues such as whether the judiciary can meet the expectations of the people and whether the people can understand judicial decisions depends on whether the state establishes some kind of substantive exchange relationship between the two entities, justice and society. In a sense, the jury system was established to cater to this need. On the one hand, the jury is the spokesperson for social values, which can reflect the public will in the trial of a specific case, thus making the judgment more humane; on the other hand, the jury is the examiner of the law and can refuse to apply the law "against the will of the public".
malpractices
1. The cost from jury selection to participation in the trial is too high and the efficiency is too low. This places a heavy burden not only on the judiciary, but also on both parties to the proceedings and on the jurors themselves in a waste of time and money.
2. The lack of a judgment reason system conflicts with the appeal system. In most countries where juries are in place, juries are neither required nor able to provide reasons for sentencing. In the absence of a reason for the judgment, the parties simply cannot understand the adjudication basis of the adjudicator and cannot effectively appeal.
3. In specific cases, some social factors such as racial discrimination are guided, resulting in some unfair judgments.
4. The jury's ability to determine the facts is the biggest controversy facing the jury system in the United States. Because the jury is made up of ordinary people who have neither specialized legal training nor specialized trial experience in advance, many jurists question the jury's ability to decide, arguing that it is difficult for them to "perform the functions of a judge" well.
5) Jurors' participation is the infusion of an unpredictable element into the judicial system.