A unanimous decision must be reached; all of them. For criminal cases, all verdicts must be unanimous, meaning that all jurors must be in agreement. Criminal cases have 12 jurors. Civil cases generally only have 6 jurors, and in some cases five agreeing jurors can constitute a guilty verdict even if one juror disagrees.
The entire jury must agree that the defendant is guilty. They are unable to leave the room until they reach a unanimous decision. So, in a sense, it would take however many jurors that are inspecting the case to find someone guilty.
Most States (possibly all) require a unanimous decision of a 12 person jury for either guilt or innocence. Anything less than unanimous will result in a hung jury mistrial.
All of them. Often, juries are made up of 12 people. However, there are jurisdictions where the jury consists of a different number, such as 6.
It has to be unaminous for not guilty or is guilty verdict.
This is dependent on the court and the statutes with-in the territory you reside in, but traditionally, ALL jurors must vote GUILTY for a guilty verdict.
The laws for jury trials varies a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Typically if one juror votes not quilty, it will be an acquittal.
all twelve - the vote has to be unanimous
A majority (12).
Yes, there are new jurors. The retrial can be many months or even years later and the original jury would be have exposed to news and other influences.
5 jurors
twelve
12
It must be agreed by all (12) of the jurors deciding the case.
All 12.
The number of jurors in a jury can vary depending on the jurisdiction and type of trial. Typically, a jury consists of 12 jurors for criminal trials and can range from 6 to 12 for civil trials.
six jurors and two alternates. Only six go to deliberations, if it gets that far.
How many jurors are empaneled is determined by each jurisdiction, there is no 'national' answer and I cant give you a specific without knowing which Supreme Court you are referring to.
Anonymity protects the juror from being harmed by the public. If someone is accused of a crime that produces a public response, our culture will do more than form a personal opinion. Some citizens will attempt to seek change by influencing the jurors. This influence will include phone calls, some citizens will make death threats and take action on the jurors that don't respond to the threat. If the common public believes that a specific outcome must occur and the jury does not respond that way, anonymity protects the jurors from being harmed for making a decision that is not in agreement with the public. Anonymity also protects the juror's ability to be free from outside influences and allows an objective decision based on the evidence. Without such protection, political action groups, or members of common culture, could contact the jurors and try to swing their vote based on different interests. Jurors would receive misinformation that may motivate a decision but have nothing to do with the case. Some would try to get the jurors angry. Others would establishe a social expectation that would bear much more authority than the defense attorney presenting information. Anonymity will protect the jury's decision by allowing the jurors to be free from groups that seek such motivation. The effect of this protection helps the defendant. If the jurors could not separate themselves from the public, many decisions would simply reflect the status quo rather than analyzing what actually happened. An objective, fair trial is possible with this anonymity as it disconnects the jury from outside influences that would otherwise change the vote.
It depends on the laws of your state.