This entry contains information applicable to United States law only. In trials, a group of people selected and sworn to inquire into matters of fact and to reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented to it.
In U.S. law, decisions in many civil and criminal trials are made by a jury. Considerable power is vested in this traditional body of ordinary men and women, which is charged with deciding matters of fact and delivering a verdict of guilt or innocence based on the evidence in a case. Derived from its historical counterpart in English common law, trial by jury has had a central role in U.S. courtrooms since the colonial era, and it is firmly established as a basic guarantee in the U.S. Constitution. Modern juries are the result of a long series of Supreme Court decisions interpreting this constitutional liberty and, in significant ways, extending it.
History
The historical roots of the jury date to the eighth century. Long before becoming an impartial body, during the reign of Charlemagne juries interrogated prisoners. In the twelfth century, the Normans brought the jury to England, where its accusatory function remained: citizens acting as jurors were required to come forward as witnesses and give evidence before the monarch's judges. Not until the fourteenth century did jurors cease to be witnesses and begin to assume their modern role as triers of fact. This role was well established in British common law when settlers brought the tradition to America, and after the United States declared its independence, all state constitutions guaranteed the right of jury trial in criminal cases.
Viewing the jury as central to the rights of the new nation, the Founders firmly established its role in the U.S. Constitution. They saw the jury as not only a benefit to the accused but also a check on the judiciary, much as Congress exists as a check on the executive branch. The Constitution establishes and safeguards the right to a trial by jury in four ways: Article III establishes this right in federal criminal cases; the Fifth Amendment provides for grand juries, or panels that review complaints in criminal cases, hear the evidence of the prosecutor, and decide whether to issue an indictment that will bring the accused person to trial; the Sixth Amendment guarantees in serious federal criminal cases the right to trial by a petit jury, the most common form of jury; and the Seventh Amendment provides for a jury trial in civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
The modern jury is largely a result of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has shaped and sometimes extended these constitutional rights. One important decision was the Court's 1968 ruling in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S. Ct. 1444, 20 L. Ed. 2d 491, which requires states to provide for jury trials in serious criminal cases. Prior to Duncan, states had their own rules; Louisiana, for instance, required juries only in cases where the possible punishment was death or hard labor. The Court declared that the right to a jury trial is fundamental. In cases in which the punishment exceeds six months' imprisonment, it ruled, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the protections of the Sixth Amendment apply equally to federal and state criminal prosecutions.
Defendants can, under some circumstances, refuse a jury trial in favor of a trial before a judge. In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not imply a related right to refuse one (Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S. Ct. 783, 13 L. Ed. 2d 630). It observed that juries are important not only to the defendant but also to the government and the public. The government, it said, has an interest in trying cases "before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result." Thus, in federal cases, rules governing criminal procedure allow a defendant to waive a jury trial only if the government consents and the court gives its approval. States vary in their approach, with some, such as Nebraska and Minnesota, requiring only the court's approval and others, such as Illinois and Louisiana, granting the defendant's wish as long as the decision is informed.
Jury Selection
Jury selection is the process of choosing jurors. Not all people are required to serve on the jury: some individuals and members of some occupational groups can be excused if serving would cause them or their family hardship. The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment merely requires that jurors be selected from a list that does not exclude any identifiable segment of the community (Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S. Ct. 692, 42 L. Ed. 2d 690 [1975]).
Federal courts select grand and petit juries according to the guidelines in the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1861-78 [1988 & Supp. V 1993]). Generally, most communities use voter registration lists to choose prospective jurors, who are then summoned to appear for jury duty. This group of prospective jurors is called a venire.
Once the venire is assembled, attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense begin a process called voir dire. Literally meaning "to speak the truth," voir dire is a preliminary examination of the prospective jurors to inquire into their competence and suitability to sit on the jury. Although the judge may ask questions, primarily the attorneys do so. Their goal is to eliminate jurors who may be biased against their side, while choosing the jurors who are most likely to be sympathetic. Attorneys for each side are allowed to reject potential jurors in two ways. They may dismiss anyone for cause, meaning a reason that is relevant to that person's ability and fitness to perform jury duty. And they may issue a limited number of peremptory challenges, which are dismissals that do not require a reason.
The process of voir dire — especially in the exercise of peremptory challenges to custom design a jury — has provoked controversy. Defendants can challenge a venire, alleging discrimination, but such complaints are difficult to prove. Thus, critics of the selection process have argued that it skews the composition of juries according to race, class, and gender. In 1990, the Supreme Court held that juries do not have to represent a cross section of a community, but merely must be drawn from a pool that is representative of the community (Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 110 S. Ct. 803, 107 L. Ed. 2d 905). In 1991, it forbade prosecutors to use their peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race (Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S. Ct. 1364, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411). Along with other complaints— on issues ranging from efficiency to fairness— the decisions provided advocates of jury reform with further ammunition for their efforts to change fundamentally and even eliminate juries.
Jury Size
Juries range in size according to their nature. Grand juries are so-called because they are usually larger than petit juries, having from twelve to twenty-three members. Traditionally, petit juries have had twelve members, but the number is not fixed. In 1970, the Supreme Court held that the number twelve was not an essential element of trial by jury (Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446), and it has sanctioned juries of no fewer than six members in criminal cases (Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223, 98 S. Ct. 1029, 55 L. Ed. 2d 234 [1978]). Parties in federal district courts as well as in many state courts can stipulate that the jury size be any number between six and twelve. Commonly, federal district court juries consist of six persons for civil cases.
Jury Instructions
Throughout a trial, the jury receives instructions from the judge. The judge explains relevant points of law, which the jury is bound to accept and apply. The judge directs the jury to disregard inadmissible testimony and provides guidelines on how to behave outside of court. During the 1995 trial of O. J. Simpson for the murder of his estranged second wife and a friend of hers, for example, Judge Lance Ito issued daily orders to jurors not to discuss the case with anyone. Some instructions vary across jurisdictions and according to judges, such as whether jurors will be allowed to take notes during the trial; generally, they may not. In certain highly publicized trials, the judge may sequester the jury — that is, isolate its members in private living quarters such as hotel rooms in order to shield them from trial publicity. Violating the judge's orders can result in a juror being dismissed from the trial in favor of an alternate juror.
Jury Verdict
Following the closing arguments in a trial, jurors deliberate in private to arrive at a verdict, which is then reported to the court by the jury foreman or forewoman. Defendants in federal jury trials have the right to a unanimous verdict. This is not true in state jury trials, where the size of the jury determines whether unanimity is required: a twelve-member jury may convict without unanimity, a six-member jury cannot.
In some cases, agreement among jurors is very difficult to reach. When jurors fail to reach an agreement, the judge may issue an instruction known as an Allen charge, in which the judge tells the jurors to continue deliberating and to listen carefully to and be deferential toward each other's views. Continued failure to arrive at a verdict results in a hung jury, which necessitates a new trial with a different jury.
In criminal trials in most jurisdictions, the jury's job ends with the delivery of a verdict of guilt or innocence on every count pertaining to the case, and the judge determines sentencing. In civil cases, juries generally determine the amount of a damages award.
See: due process of law; grand jury.
