Occasionally, the opposite problem occurs and a party refuses to participate in the summary jury trial process. The response of the courts has varied, depending upon the nature of the case and the reasons for the desire to avoid the summary jury trial process. Courts have been comfortable in putting judicial economy first in cases in which parties seek to avoid the "dash of cold water" afforded by the jury verdict. On the other hand, courts have also allowed parties to refuse participation in the process when it might jeopardize the parties' normal litigation. Since the aim of a summary jury trial is to promote settlement negotiations, there would seem to be little point in dragging a party into a situation in which they might withhold their best efforts and thus bias the verdict brought back.
The process of empanelling a "mock jury" has caused some controversy. In the Hume case, the court flatly denied a request by both parties for a summary jury trial on the grounds that it did not have authority to require citizens to serve on a "mock" jury. Usually, this has not been a problem.
In the eyes of the layperson, the summary jury trial proceeds much like a regular trial. The jury is selected by voir direwithout being told that its verdict is non-binding. The clients must attend from the opening statements through summary presentations of evidence and closing arguments. After the verdict, the parties begin an examination of the verdict and the reasons why the jurors reached it. When the parties believe that they understand how their evidence fared in the minds of the jury, they meet and once more attempt to hammer out their differences. Note that at this stage, the proceeding devolves to a rather traditional negotiation session!
the jury is supposedly composed of a cross section of the community, however this does not seem to be so, in a community where there are mostly whites or asians or African origin if you do not fall into that category then you might be in the minority. and thus not be really judged by your peers.
none have legal expetise and they may have difficulties coming to a reason for innocent or guilty and they may find hard with the complex evidence
what were the pros and cons for the nulification
well if demarcus shot lamar then he would be jumped but if the jury wasnt cool they would just slap him and give him a haircut
Government
Yes, it can be. For instance, jury members can be intimidated or bribed.
and
Pros are good things about something. Cons are bad things about something. So the pros and cons of an operating system are the good and bad things about it.
There are many pros and cons about management information system. One pro is that there is organization within the system being managed.
The advantages of the jury system are as follows : * The jury system allows the general people of the country to take part in the administration of justice. * The jury service has necome a convention in the UK, which provides confidence to the people about the impartiality and fairness of the jury trials. * Since jurors are lay people who are not legal experts, they decide cases on the basis of fairness. This reduces the harshness of the legal system.
The jury is the cornerstone of the civil justice system because it allows a defendant to be judged by a jury of their peers. This consist of men and women for his community, rather than by a judge.
hahahahahahahahah
A jury in Australia is made up of 12 people chosen at random from the locality.
the Jury system in the 1930 was a lot like it is today, yet they still had the problem of racism and prejudice against the blacks at that time.