It has to be a unanimous decision - or - a majority of at least 10 people agreeing to the verdict.
7
Yes. A judge can direct the jury but cannot force them to a verdict. For example - the judge may say something like "..If you are satisfied the defendant acted maliciously, then you must find him guilty of murder. If not, then you must find him guilty of manslaughter..."
It will obvioulsy be the contention of the defendant that no one had any "proof" that they did it, but if they were, nonetheless, found guilty the proseuction MUST have presented enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the offense.
A judge or jury must reach the decision that the defendant is guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond ALL doubt - just "reasonable" doubt.
At law, in a jury trial, the jury makes findings of factand the judge makes conclusions of law. In a bench trial, the judge makes both findings of fact and conclusions of law.To distinguish this type of jury from the grand jury, it is sometimes known as a petit jury. Also, less formally than the law French, it is known as a jury of one's peers.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime they are accused of. This includes presenting evidence and convincing the jury or judge that the defendant is guilty.
It can vary according to the statutes of the various states. A 'petit jury' is the name for ANY jury other than a "Grand Jury" It usually depends upon the seriousness of the charges being tried.
The defense do not have to prove anything, if the prosecution fail to prove guilt, then the defendant is not guilty (in an ideal world). It may be the case thaat a jury may find guilt when a charge has not really been adequately proved to be true, but in this case the judge must direct them to find "not guilty" through lack of evidence.
The standard of proof that the government must meet to find a defendant guilty in criminal law is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means that the evidence presented must be strong enough to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt without any reasonable doubt.
No, the jury is not required to provide an explanation for their verdict. In most legal systems, juries simply deliver a verdict of guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented during the trial. Their decision must be unanimous or meet the specific requirements set by the jurisdiction, but they are not obligated to disclose the reasoning behind it.
a jury must come back with a vote of 9/12Another View: A civil jury must only find you guilty by a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence, and NOT, as in a criminal tiral, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Oh, dude, in a criminal trial, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, so technically, if all the jurors vote for the defendant to be innocent, then they are acquitted. So, like, all the jurors would have to vote for innocence for the defendant to walk free. But hey, who's counting, right?