Impartial Jury System Analysis

Under the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to impartial jury. The jury will consider the evidence against the defendant and decide whether to find him or her guilty of the crime. Twelve jurors must agree in order to find a defendant guilty or not guilty. If the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict and finds itself at a standstill, the judge may declare a mistrial.

The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be in a democracy or self-government and established the jury system into the constitution. It is expensive and is a long process to start a jury trial. Also, jurors are not as professional as judges and can not determine a fair verdict. The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the

The original text of the amendment did not specify a particular size for a jury, but it did state that the accused had the right to a trial "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. "Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several decisions related to the size of the jury. In 1898, the Court ruled in Thompson v. Utah that a jury of eight was sufficient in a criminal trial. However, in 1970, the Court ruled in Williams v. Florida that a six-person jury was constitutional. Later, in 1979, the Court upheld the use of six-person juries in state criminal trials in Ballew v. Georgia.

Our rejection of simple-majority jury decisions, I believe, was deeply-rooted. In the 1700’s, Sir William Blackstone made his opinion clear that a jury trial was the most “transcendent privilege” any person can hope for. 3 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 379 (1768). That no state can take away your property or liberty without the “unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals,” was a great comfort to Blackstone, as it should be to all of us. Id. John Adams believed that a unanimous jury is the thing that “preserves the rights of mankind.”

Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be

Like the Electoral College, several of the plans made by the Founding Fathers have lost some of their practicality. What worked in the past does not always work in the future, and this is the case for the jury system. The sole reason it was created was to ensure that each citizen was guaranteed a fair trial, which was a main concern due to Britain’s monarchy. In modern times, however, the judicial branch of the United States could easily give every citizen a fair trial with only a judge presiding over the case. It is clear that bench trials are superior to trials by jury because the citizens on juries are unqualified or biased, its benefits do not outweigh its burdens, and its claim to encourage civic duty is false.

During the Boston Bombing trial, the court system retrieved three thousand citizens of Boston to be surveyed. It took those months to get the twelve adults they needed which is a really long time. In those three months where they were choosing a jury, they could have already completed the trial and the verdict would have been reached much quicker. Instead of waiting months for the jury to be selected, they could have rolled with one or two judges, three at max, to decide on the case. Juror selection is a long and complicated process that requires patience, money, and time.

The American Jury System offers the United States citizens an opportunity to be proven guilty or innocent when a crime has been committed. The twelve person jury system was established in England hundreds of years ago. Originally this system was made up of twelve men and this was huge because they had the power to go against what the judge wanted in court. There are many vital points as to why our American jury system is successful; jury trials by the numbers, ownership by jury members towards the accused, how reliable or unreliable evidence is viewed by jurors, gender balance and the detailed screening process in which jurors are selected.

Juries are selected at random from the community, ensuring that the trial is not biased towards any particular group or individual. The use of juries in the legal system provides a system of checks and balances. “Of course trial by Jury is one of our sacred cows.” (Document B) The jury acts as a counterbalance to the power of judges and prosecutors, ensuring that no one person or group has too much influence over the outcome of the case.

a reasonable doubt. After the closing arguments from both the prosecution and defense attorney, the jury will deliberate. Jury deliberation takes place in seclusion, and jury instructions from the judge will be made clear, any evidence will be reviewed, testimony and witness credibility will be taken into consideration, as well as the charges. Subsequently, the jury will reach a verdict and the judge, defendants, prosecution attorney, defense attorney, and accused will reconvene in the courtroom for the verdict to be read aloud by the jury foreman (Gaines and Miller, 2011, p.189). Once the verdict has been read, the trial process has concluded.

Trial by Jury Everyone has the right to a trial by jury is a practice that the United States adapted from England common law. The United States Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury for most criminal and many civil offenses.

At the time of the Constitution, English courts were controlled by the king. That means when and how a person was tried was up to the king or someone loyal to the king. Juries were never impartial. Many times, peasant trials were presided over by lords and landowners. It was the equivalent of being tried by your accuser.

This was determined from way back when America was first being created. Originally the U.S was control by the British but one of the main reasons for our independences from them other than the fact that the U.S. did not like their high taxes but also was because the jurors and their rights. According to the video “Annenberg Classroom: Juries” when a judge did not like the juries verdicts they were fine and threatened to have their nose cut off. American wanted their judicial to be fair and equal for all. However, they are wrong in the fact that all citizens should need to serve on the jury because people will misuse this power and will not truly understand their effect on the case and more importantly the people live on trail.

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,