When a jury nullifies, it means they have chosen to disregard the law or evidence and deliver a verdict that conflicts with the judge's instructions. Generally, jury nullification is not subject to review or appeal, as it reflects the jury's discretion in interpreting justice. Courts typically respect the jury's decision, and there are no legal mechanisms to challenge a nullified verdict. However, the circumstances surrounding the nullification might raise questions in future cases or influence legal discussions.
the trial came to a stalemate when the jury could not come up with a verdict
Jem realizes the jury has convicted Tom Robinson before the verdict is read based on the jury's expressions and body language. He notices that the jury members look uneasy and avoid making eye contact with Tom or his lawyer, suggesting they have already made up their minds about the verdict.
The time it takes for a jury to reach a verdict can vary greatly depending on the complexity of the case, the amount of evidence presented, and the deliberation process. It can range from a few hours to several days or even weeks.
For civil cases, two types of verdicts are rendered; general and special. The verdict need not be unanimous, a 3:4 will suffice. General verdict, the jury has decided the case either in favour of the defendant or the claimant (plantiff) Special verdict, a general decision is not announced (obviously) and rather the jury has answered certain factual questions, leaving the complete decision up to the court itself.
It is not expressed in exactly that way. It is said that "Jurors are the TRIERS of fact." Both the defense and the proseecution present the jury with the facts as the defense and prosecution see them. It is up to the jurors to decide which version they believe, and render a verdict accordingly.
A jury, no matter what the case is, is expected to weight up the evidence presented to it. Then, when a verdict has been reached, it is passed to the judge.
it means that the judge gave the jury proper instructions and guidance about how they should reach a verdict-this includes how to weigh up the evidence,advice on specific points of law,what level of agreement between them is acceptable and so on.Occasionally,judges omit key details or display bias and this can be a source of appeal on the grounds that the jury were misdirected.
The origin of the term is unclear, but it is definitely American in origin, dating from around the early 19th century, no later than the 1840's. Assorted accounts at the time of mistrials due to lack of jury unanimity have referred to the jury being "hung", perhaps a means of saying "hung up", unable to proceed.
The Athenian jury system selected jurors randomly from a pool of volunteers, while the US jury system selects jurors from voter registration or drivers license lists. In Athens, the jury size could be up to 501 citizens, while in the US, a standard jury size is 12. Additionally, in Athens, jurors voted by placing a token in one of two urns, whereas in the US, jurors deliberate and reach a consensus verdict.
Yes, circumstantial evidence is admissible in court. It can be used to support a case and help establish guilt or innocence, but it is up to the judge or jury to determine its weight and credibility in reaching a verdict.
A grand jury is a group of citizens who review evidence presented by prosecutors to determine if there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges against a person. The grand jury operates in secret and its proceedings are not open to the public. If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence, they will issue an indictment, which allows the case to proceed to trial.
No