Overall, jury use has been increasing worldwide.
Argentina Argentina is one of the first countries in
Latin America to have implemented trial by jury. Although it has a civil law process, since November 2015, it has a jury system for serious criminal cases.
Australia Section 80 of the Australian Constitution provides that: "The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes. The first trials by civilian juries of 12 in the colony of
New South Wales were held in 1824, following a decision of the NSW Supreme Court on 14 October 1824. The
New South Wales Constitution Act 1828 (
7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 73) effectively terminated trial by jury for criminal matters. Jury trials for criminal matters revived with the passing of the Jury Trials Amending Act of 1833 (NSW) (2 William IV No 12).
Challenging potential jurors The
voir dire system of examining the jury pool before selection is not permitted in Australia as it violates the privacy of jurors. Therefore, though it exists, the right to
challenge for cause during
jury selection cannot be employed much.
Peremptory challenges are usually based on the
hunches of counsel and no reason is needed to use them. All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in
jury selection; however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels in each state are not all the same. Until 1987
New South Wales had twenty peremptory challenges for each side where the offence was murder, and eight for all other cases. In 1987 this was lowered to three peremptory challenges per side, the same amount allowed in
South Australia. Eight peremptory challenges are allowed for both counsels for all offences in
Queensland.
Victoria,
Tasmania and the
Northern Territory allow for six.
Western Australia allows three peremptory challenges per side unless there is more than one accused in which case the prosecution can peremptorily challenge three times the number of accused and each accused has three peremptory challenges.
Majority and unanimous verdicts in criminal trials In
Australia,
majority verdicts are allowed in
South Australia,
Victoria,
Western Australia,
Tasmania, the
Northern Territory,
New South Wales and
Queensland, while the
ACT requires
unanimous verdicts. Since 1927 South Australia has permitted majority verdicts of 11-1 (or 10-1 or 9-1 in cases where the jury has been reduced) in criminal trials if a unanimous verdict cannot be reached in four hours. These are accepted in all cases except for
guilty verdicts if the defendant is on trial for murder or
treason. Victoria has accepted majority verdicts with the same conditions since 1994, though deliberations must have gone for at least six hours before a majority verdict can be made. Western Australia accepted majority verdicts in 1957 for all trials except where the crime is murder or has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment: a 10-2 verdict is accepted. Majority verdicts of 10-2 have been allowed in Tasmania since 1936 for all cases, except murder and treason, if a unanimous decision has not been made within two hours. Since 1943, verdicts of
not guilty for murder and treason have also been included, but must be deliberated for six hours. The Northern Territory has allowed majority verdicts of 10-2, 10-1 and 9-1 since 1963 for all charges. Deliberation must go for at least six hours before delivering a majority verdict. The Queensland
Jury Act 1995 (s 59F) allows majority verdicts for all crimes except for murder and other offences that carry a life sentence, although only 11-1 or 10-1 majorities are allowed. Majority verdicts were introduced in New South Wales in 2006. In New South Wales, a majority verdict can only be returned if the jury consists of at least 11 jurors, and the deliberation has occurred for at least eight hours or for a period that the court considers reasonable having regard to the nature and complexity of the case. Additionally, the court must be satisfied through examination of one or more of the jurors on oath that a unanimous verdict will not be reached if further deliberation were to occur.—trial by jury is mandatory unless the prosecution consents to trial by judge alone.
Jury panel exhaustion According to the case of
R v Mid-Valley Tractor Sales Limited (1995 CarswellNB 313), there are limitations on the powers granted by Section 642. These powers are conferred specifically upon the judge, and the section does not confer a further discretion to delegate that power to others, such as the sheriff's officer, even with the consent of counsel. The Court said that to hold otherwise would nullify the rights of the accused and the prosecution to object to a person being excused inappropriately, and may also interfere with the rights of the parties to challenge for cause. The selection of an impartial jury is the basis of a fair trial. The Supreme Court of Canada also held in
Basarabas and Spek v The Queen (1982 SCR 730) that the right of an accused to be present in court during the whole of his trial includes the jury selection process. In
Tran v The Queen (1994 2 SCR 951), it was held that an accused only has to show that they were excluded from a part of the trial that affected their vital interests, they do not have to demonstrate actual prejudice, just the potential for prejudice. As well, a valid waiver of such a right must be clear, unequivocal and done with full knowledge of the rights that the procedure was enacted to protect, as well as the effect that the waiver will have on those rights.
China Hong Kong Hong Kong, as a former
British colony, has a common law legal system. Article 86 of Hong Kong's Basic Law, which came into force on 1 July 1997 following the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China provides: "The principle of trial by jury previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained." Criminal trials in the
High Court are by jury. The juries are generally made of seven members, who can return a verdict based on a majority of five. There are no jury trials in the
District Court, which can impose a sentence of up to seven years' imprisonment. This is despite the fact that all court rooms in the District Court have jury boxes. The lack of juries in the District Court has been severely criticized.
Clive Grossman SC in a commentary in 2009 said conviction rates were "approaching those of North Korea". Many complex commercial cases are prosecuted in the District Court rather than before a jury in the High Court. In 2009, Lily Chiang, former chairwoman of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, lost an application to have her case transferred from the District Court to the High Court for a jury trial. Justice Wright in the Court of First Instance held that there was no absolute right to a trial by jury and that the "decision as to whether an indictable offence be tried in the Court of First Instance by a judge and jury or in the District Court by a judge alone is the prerogative of the Secretary for Justice." Chiang issued a statement at the time saying "she was disappointed with the judgment because she has been deprived of a jury trial, an opportunity to be judged by her fellow citizens and the constitutional benefit protected by the Basic Law". In civil cases in the Court of First Instance jury trials are available for defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or seduction unless the court orders otherwise. A jury can return a majority verdict in a civil case. The government can issue a judge-only trial order under the
Hong Kong national security law, in cases which contain "involvement of foreign elements", "personal safety of jurors and their family members" or "risk of perverting the course of justice if the trial is conducted with a jury".
Democratic Republic of the Congo Kuba Kingdom In
Kuba Kingdom in what is now the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, trial by jury was established independently prior to the arrival of Europeans in 1884.
France In France, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial only when prosecuted for a felony (
crime in French). Crimes encompass all offenses that carry a penalty of at least 10 years' imprisonment (for
natural persons) or a fine of €75,000 (for
legal persons). The only court that tries by jury is the ''
cour d'assises,'' in which three professional judges sit together with six or nine jurors (on appeal). Conviction requires a two-thirds majority (four or six votes).
Greece The country that originated the concept of the
jury trial retains it in an unusual form. The
Constitution of Greece and Code of criminal procedure provide that felonies (
Greek: Κακουργήματα) are tried by a "mixed court" composed of three professional
judges, including the President of the Court, and four lay judges who decide the facts, and the appropriate penalty if they convict. Certain felonies, such as
terrorism, are exempt, due to their nature, from the jurisdiction of the "mixed courts" and are tried instead by the Court of Appeals both in first and second instance.
Hungary Hungary used a jury system from 1897 to 1919. Since 1949, Hungary uses the mixed court system. According to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, "non-professional judges shall also participate in the administration of justice in the cases and ways specified in an Act." In these cases, the court adjudicates in a panel which is composed of 1 professional judge as chair of the panel and 2 lay judges or 2 professional judges and 3 lay judges. Lay judges are elected by city councils and can be Hungarian citizens between the age of 30 and 70 years who have not been convicted. Non-professional judges have the same rights and responsibilities as professional judges, meaning that if they vote against the professional judge(s), their vote will decide the verdict. According to procedural laws, the youngest judge votes first and the chair of the panel votes last in case they reach a verdict through a vote.
India The history of jury trials in India dates back to the period of
European colonization. In 1665, a
petit jury in
Madras composed of twelve
English and
Portuguese jurors acquitted a Mrs. Ascentia Dawes, who was on trial for the murder of her
enslaved servant. During the period of
Company rule in India, jury trials within a dual-court system territories were implemented in Indian territories under
East India Company (EIC) control. In
Presidency towns (such as
Calcutta,
Bombai and Madras),
Crown Courts employed juries to judge European and Indian defendants in
criminal cases. Outside of Presidency towns, Company Courts staffed by EIC officials judged both criminal and
civil cases without the use of a jury.
Ireland In the
Republic of Ireland, a
common law jurisdiction, jury trials are available for
criminal cases before the
Circuit Court,
Central Criminal Court and
defamation cases, consisting of twelve jurors. Juries only decide questions of fact; they have no role in criminal sentencing in criminal cases however they do have a role in awarding damages in defamation cases. It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In civil cases, a verdict may be reached by a majority of nine of the twelve members. In a criminal case, a verdict need not be unanimous where there are not fewer than eleven jurors if ten of them agree on a verdict after considering the case for a reasonable time. Juries are selected from a jury panel, which is picked at random by the
county registrar from the
electoral register. The principal statute regulating the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the
Juries Act 1976 as amended by the
Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, which scrapped the upper age limit of 70. Juries are not paid, nor do they receive travel expenses. They do receive lunch for the days that they are serving; however, for jurors in employment, their employer is required to pay them as if they were present at work. For certain terrorist and organised crime offences the
Director of Public Prosecutions may issue a certificate that the accused be tried by the
Special Criminal Court composed of three judges instead of a jury, one from the
District Court,
Circuit Court and
High Court.
Italy The
Corte d'Assise is composed of 2 judges and 6 laypersons chosen at random among Italian citizens 30 to 65 years old. Only serious crimes like murder can be tried by the Corte d'Assise.
Japan On May 28, 2004, the
Diet of Japan enacted a law requiring selected citizens to take part in criminal court trials of certain severe crimes to make decisions together with professional judges, both on guilt and on the sentence. These citizens are called
saiban-in (裁判員 "lay judge"). Convictions and
death sentences require the concurrence of both a majority of all judges and at least one professional judge. The
saiban-in system was implemented in May 2009.
Malaysia Malaysia abolished trials by jury on 1 January 1995. The impartiality of jury trials had been brought into question for several years prior, but their abolition was expedited by the notorious
Mona Fandey case in 1993. The sensational nature of the crime heightened concerns that jury verdicts could be coloured by emotions and media bias.
New Zealand The
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides a defendant with the right to a jury trial if they are charged with a criminal offence punishable by two years' imprisonment or more. For most offences, the defendant can choose to forego a jury trial in favour of a judge-alone (bench) trial. Serious "category 4" offences such as murder, manslaughter and treason are always tried by jury, with some exceptions. Civil jury trials are restricted to cases involving defamation, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. New Zealand previously required jury verdicts to be passed unanimously, but since the passing of the Criminal Procedure Bill in 2009 the Juries Act 1981 has permitted verdicts to be passed by a majority of one less than the full jury (that is an 11–1 or a 10–1 majority) under certain circumstances.
Norway Norway has a system where the lower courts (
tingrett) is set with a judge and two lay judges, or in bigger cases two judges and three lay judges. All of these judges convict or acquit, and set sentences. Simple majority is required in all cases, which means that the lay-judges are always in control. In the higher court/appellate court (
lagmannsrett) there is a jury (
lagrette) of 10 members, which need a minimum of seven votes to be able to convict. The judges have no say in the jury deliberations, but jury instructions are given by the chief judge (
lagmann) in each case to the jury before deliberations. The
voir-dire is usually set with 16 prospective jurors, which the prosecution and defence may dismiss the six persons they do not desire to serve on the jury. This court (
lagmannsretten) is administered by a three-judge panel (usually one
lagmann and two
lagdommere), and if seven or more jury members want to convict, the sentence is set in a separate proceeding, consisting of the three judges and the jury foreman (
lagrettens ordfører) and three other members of the jury chosen by ballot. This way the laymen are in control of both the conviction and sentencing, as simple majority is required in sentencing. The three-judge panel can set aside a jury conviction or acquittal if there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice. In that event, the case is settled by three judges and four lay-judges. In May 2015, the
Norwegian Parliament asked the government to bring an end to jury trials, replacing them with a bench trial (
meddomsrett) consisting of two law-trained judges and five lay judges (
lekdommere). This has now been fully implemented as of March 2021.
Russia In the
judiciary of Russia, for serious crimes the accused has the option of a jury trial consisting of 12 jurors. The number of jury trials remains small, at about 600 per year, out of about 1 million trials. Juries may be dismissed and skeptical juries have been dismissed on the verge of verdicts, and acquittals are frequently overturned by higher courts. though jury trials for non-capital offenses had already been abolished a decade earlier. Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew, a former trial lawyer, explained why he supported the policy to the BBC and in his memoirs, saying, "I had no faith in a system that allowed the superstition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence." For cases eligible for citizen participation trial, see The court seeks to enhance juror attendance rates and promote diversity in jury composition in order to ensure the fairness of trials. The court provides jurors with daily allowances and travel expenses, the amount of which varies depending on the time the trial concludes. Individuals who attend only the jury selection session but are not selected as jurors receive 60,000 KRW. Those who are selected as formal jurors or prospective jurors receive the following money: – 120,000 KRW if the trial concludes before 6:00 p.m.; – 160,000 KRW if it concludes before 9:00 p.m.; – 200,000 KRW if it concludes before midnight; and – 240,000 KRW if it concludes after midnight.
Compare jury system with lay judge system Under the jury system, jurors consisting of ordinary citizens take part in the trial and deliver a verdict on guilt or innocence independently of professional judges, and the judge is bound by the verdict. Under the lay judge system, lay judges consisting of ordinary citizens join the bench with professional judges and have equal authority in determining matters of fact and law. The Korean participatory trial system is distinctive in that it incorporates aspects of both the jury system and the lay judge system, modifying them to accommodate the specific circumstances of Korea.
Features • Jury conducts their deliberations independently, without the involvement of the judge, and shall reach a unanimous verdict. In cases where a unanimous verdict cannot be reached, the jury may reach a verdict by majority vote after listening to the judge’s opinion. • While jurors deliberate on sentencing with the presiding judge, they do not take part in the decision on sentencing by vote but merely state their opinions. • The jurors’ verdict does not bind the court and has only an advisory effect.
Shadow Jury The shadow jury, organized independently of the formal jury in a citizen participation trial, attends the entire proceedings and may conduct deliberations and deliver a verdict on guilt or innocence, along with providing opinions on sentencing. However, the court does not take the shadow jurors’ verdicts into account in rendering its judgment. The fact that their deliberations may be made public distinguishes them from the formal jurors. Ordinary citizens, acting as shadow jurors, are able to observe the vivid courtroom debates of real cases and deliberate on issues such as guilt, innocence, and sentencing in a manner similar to actual jury deliberations.
Jury Instructions • Jury must not discuss the case with one another or with anyone else. • Before deliberations begin, jurors must not express or discuss their opinions about the case. • Jurors must not collect or investigate any information about the case outside the court proceedings. • If a juror becomes aware of any attempt by anyone to improperly influence the performance of jury duties, it must be reported to the court immediately. • Jurors must not leave the courtroom or the deliberation room without the judge’s permission. • Jurors must not disclose any opinions of the judge or fellow jurors, or the distribution of those opinions, learned during deliberations, verdict discussions, or any related process.
Procedure for Jury selection The jury selection procedure refers to the process by which a certain number of prospective jurors are randomly drawn from the list of potential jurors prepared by each level of court. The court conducts questioning of the prospective jurors who appear in court to verify their qualifications and to determine whether they are capable of rendering an impartial judgment. Through this process, the court selects both formal jurors and prospective jurors. A prospective juror who is deemed unqualified to serve as a juror, or who is found to possess prejudice or bias regarding the case that would make it difficult to render an impartial verdict, may not be selected as a juror. The prosecutor and the defense counsel may each exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges against prospective jurors without stating any reason. The identities of the jurors and alternate jurors will be disclosed only after the conclusion of the arguments. When the trial begins, the jurors shall take an oath in accordance with the law to faithfully and impartially perform their duties.
Precedents of Citizen Participation Trial • The Pesticide Poisoning Case in
Sangju Involving Contaminated Drinks A citizen participation trial was held at the
Daegu District Court for five days starting on December 7. A total of 300 residents within the court’s jurisdiction were selected as potential jurors, and on December 7, seven jurors and two prospective jurors were finally chosen. In the first trial, the jury unanimously returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment both in the first and second instances.
Status Between 2008 and 2022, 240,883 cases were eligible for citizen participation trials, of which 9,439 were filed. The application rate is 3.9%. Among 9,240 disposed cases, trials were conducted with citizen participation in 2,894 cases. The implementation rate is 31.3%. Homicide cases record the highest rate of application for citizen participation trials among all types of offenses. After 2020, the number of citizen participation trials declined to fewer than 100 cases per year across all categories of crime. From 2008 to 2022, the average period from the filing of a case to the first trial date was 112.9 days. During the same period, proceedings were conducted faster than the average duration of first-instance cases before the main division of the district court (119.4 days for detained defendants and 175.6 days for non-detained defendants). Between 2008 and 2022, 2,894 cases, corresponding to 93.6%, showed concordance between jury verdicts and court decisions.
South Africa The jury system was abolished in
South Africa in 1969 by the Abolition of Juries Act, 1969. The last jury trial to be heard was in the
District of Kimberley. Some judicial experts had argued that a system of whites-only juries (as was the system at that time) was inherently prejudicial to 'non-white' defendants (the introduction of nonracial juries would have been a political impossibility at that time). More recently it has been argued that, apart from being a racially divided country, South African society was, and still is, characterised by significant class differences and disparities of income and wealth that could make re-introducing the jury system problematic. Arguments for and against the re-introduction of a jury system have been discussed by South African constitutional expert Professor
Pierre de Vos in the article "Do we need a jury system?" On 28 March 2014, the
Oscar Pistorius trial was adjourned due to the illness of one of the two
assessors that assist the judge on questions of fact (rather than law), in place of the jury, to reach a verdict. The legal system in the UK sees no reason to block extradition on this, as witnessed in the
Shrien Dewani case.
Sweden In Sweden, juries are uncommon; the public is represented in the courts by means of
lay judges (nämndemän). However, the defendant has the right to a jury trial in the lower court (
tingsrätt) when accused of an offence against the
fundamental laws on
freedom of expression and
freedom of the press. If a person is accused of e.g.
libel or
incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, in a medium covered by the fundamental laws (e.g. a printed paper or a radio programme), they have the right to have the accusation tried by a jury of nine jurors. This applies also in civil (
tort) cases under the fundamental laws. A majority of at least six jurors (out of nine) must find that the defendant has committed the alleged crime. If it does not, the defendant is acquitted or, in a civil case, held not
liable. If such a majority of the jurors hold that said crime has in fact been committed, this finding is not legally binding for the court; thus, the court (three judges out of five) can still acquit the defendant or find him/her not liable. A jury acquittal may
not be overruled after appeal, unlike a
not guilty verdict in the district court. Hence,
both the layman majority and the jury must convict to sentence a culprit; however, if the deciding two-thirds jury majority approves and the district court finds the defendant
not guilty, the not guilty verdict may still be appealed to the Court of Appeals where, conversely, the professional judges outvotes the layman judges. (Should a case be appealed to the
Supreme Court of Sweden, only professional judges decide, and may impose a sentence or re-impose a sentence imposed by the district court but quashed by the Court of Appeals.) In such a case, the jury provides a unique lock on the ability of the professional judges, upon appeal, outvoting the layman judges. In Swedish civil process, the "
English rule" applies to
court costs. Earlier, a court disagreeing with a jury acquittal could, when deciding on the matter of such costs, set aside the English rule, and instead use the
American rule, that each party bears its own expense of litigation. This practice was declared to violate the rule of
presumption of innocence according to article 6.2. of the
European Convention on Human Rights, by the
Supreme Court of Sweden, in 2012.
Switzerland As of 2008, only the code of criminal procedure of the
Canton of Geneva provides for genuine jury trials. Several other cantons—
Vaud,
Neuchâtel,
Zürich and
Ticino—provide for courts composed of both professional judges and laymen (
Schöffengerichte / ''tribunaux d'échevins''). Because the unified Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure (set to enter into force in 2011) does not provide for jury trials or lay judges, however, they are likely to be abolished in the near future.
Taiwan The Citizen Judges Act (國民法官法) was passed by the Legislative Yuan on July 22, 2022, promulgated by the President on August 12 and was implemented on January 1, 2023. Under the act,
Lay judges in Taiwan are to be randomly selected as citizen judges who would participate in trial proceedings and adjudicate cases alongside professional judges in certain felony cases. The citizen judge system is based on Japan’s saiban-in system, which also resembles a lay judge system.
Ukraine The
judiciary of Ukraine allows jury trials for criminal cases where the sentence can reach life imprisonment if the accused so wishes. But this seldom happens. This was designed to make it more difficult for
jury tampering to succeed. In 1999 the
Home Secretary Jack Straw introduced a controversial bill to limit the right to trial by jury. This became the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, which sought to remove the right to trial by jury for cases involving jury tampering or complex fraud. The provision for trial without jury to circumvent jury tampering succeeded and came into force in 2007; the provision for complex fraud cases was defeated.
Lord Goldsmith, the then
Attorney General, then pressed forward with the
Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill in Parliament, which sought to abolish jury trials in major criminal fraud trials. The Bill was subject to sharp criticism from both sides of the
House of Commons before passing its second Commons reading in November 2006 but was defeated in
the Lords in March 2007. The trial for the first serious offence to be tried without a jury in 350 years was allowed to go ahead in 2009. Three previous trials of the defendants, who had committed armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004, had been halted because of jury tampering and the
Lord Chief Justice,
Lord Judge, cited cost and the additional burden on the jurors as reasons to proceed without a jury. Previously in cases where jury tampering was a concern the jurors were sometimes closeted in a hotel for the duration of the trial.
Liberty director of policy Isabella Sankey said that "This is a dangerous precedent. The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and representative justice system." In November 2025, Justice Secretary
David Lammy proposed limiting the use of juries to serious crimes such as rape, murder and manslaughter in order to clear the backlog of cases, a move that has been widely criticised by other political parties and senior judges.
Gibraltar Being a Common Law jurisdiction, Gibraltar retains jury trial in a similar manner to that found in
England and Wales, the exception being that juries consist of nine lay people, rather than twelve.
Scotland In Scots law the jury system has some similarities with England but some important differences; in particular, there are juries of 15 in criminal trials, with a guilty verdict requiring a two-thirds majority.
Northern Ireland In
Northern Ireland, the role of the jury trial is roughly similar to England and Wales, except that jury trials have been replaced in cases of alleged
terrorist offences by courts where the judge sits alone, known as
Diplock courts. Diplock courts are common in Northern Ireland for crimes connected to terrorism. Diplock courts were created in the 1970s during
The Troubles, to phase out
Operation Demetrius internments, and because of the argument that juries were intimidated, though this is disputed. The Diplock courts were shut in 2007, but between 1 August 2008 and 31 July 2009, 13 non-jury trials were held, down from 29 in the previous year, and 300 trials per year at their peak.
United States The availability of a trial by jury in U.S. jurisdictions varies. Because the United States legal system separated from that of the English one at the time of the
American Revolution, the types of proceedings that use juries depends on whether such cases were tried by jury under
English common law at that time rather than the methods used in English courts now. For example, at the time, English "courts of law" tried cases of
torts or
private law for monetary damages using juries, but "courts of
equity" that tried civil cases seeking an injunction or another form of non-monetary relief did not. As a result, this practice continues in American civil laws, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some inquests are likely to be heard by a jury. A distinctive feature of jury trials in the United States is that verdicts in criminal cases must be
unanimous. The right to a trial by jury is contained in
Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury". The right was expanded with the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury". Due to the
Fourteenth Amendment, these rights also apply to the states through
incorporation. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, they may waive their right to have a jury, but both the government (prosecution) and court must consent to the waiver. Several states require jury trials for all crimes, "petty" or not. In the cases
Apprendi v. New Jersey, , and
Blakely v. Washington, , the
Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but on any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines. This invalidated the procedure in many states and the
federal courts that allowed sentencing enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on the judge's findings alone. A jury must be unanimous for either a guilty or not guilty decision. A hung jury results in the defendants release; however, charges against the defendant are not dropped and can be reinstated if the government so chooses. Jurors in some states are selected through voter registration and drivers' license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking the recipient to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have any conditions that would excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, a summons is issued. English
common law and the
United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental
civil liberty or
civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury. In the United States, it is understood that juries usually weigh the evidence and testimony to determine
questions of fact, while judges usually rule on
questions of law, although the dissenting justices in the Supreme Court case
Sparf et al. v. U.S. 156 U.S. 51 (1895), generally considered the pivotal case concerning the rights and powers of the jury, declared: "It is our deep and settled conviction, confirmed by a re-examination of the authorities that the jury, upon the general issue of guilty or not guilty in a criminal case, have the right, as well as the power, to decide, according to their own judgment and consciences, all questions, whether of law or of fact, involved in that issue." Jury determination of questions of law, sometimes called
jury nullification, cannot be overturned by a judge if doing so would violate legal protections against
double jeopardy. Although a judge can throw out a guilty verdict if it was not supported by the evidence, a jurist has no authority to override a verdict that favors a defendant. It was established in
Bushel's Case that a judge cannot order the jury to convict, no matter how strong the evidence is. In civil cases, a special
verdict can be given, but in criminal cases a general verdict is rendered, because requiring a special verdict could apply pressure to the jury, and because of the jury's historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case. For this reason,
Justice Black and
Justice Douglas indicated their disapproval of special interrogatories even in civil cases. There has been much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of the jury system, the competence or lack thereof of jurors as fact-finders, and the uniformity or capriciousness of the justice they administer. The jury has been described by one author as "an exciting and gallant experiment in the conduct of serious human affairs". Because they are fact-finders, juries are sometimes expected to perform a role similar to a
lie detector, especially when presented with testimony from witnesses. A civil jury is typically made up of 6 to 12 persons. In a civil case, the role of the jury is to listen to the evidence presented at a trial, to decide whether the defendant injured the plaintiff or otherwise failed to fulfill a legal duty to the plaintiff, and to determine what the compensation or penalty should be. A criminal jury is usually made up of 12 members, though fewer may sit on cases involving lesser offenses. Criminal juries decide whether the defendant committed the crime as charged. In several southern states,
the jury sets punishment, while in most states and at the federal level, it is set by the judge. Prior to 2020, under most states' laws, verdicts in criminal cases had to be unanimous, with the exception of Oregon and Louisiana. In Oregon, a 10–2 majority was enough to reach a verdict, except for guilty verdicts for capital crimes, which required unanimity. Louisiana also did not require unanimous juries in serious felony cases until passage of a state constitutional amendment that required unanimity for crimes committed after 2018. However, in
Ramos v. Louisiana, decided in April 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that convictions for serious offenses require unanimity, overturning Oregon's and Louisiana's prior allowances for split decisions. In civil cases, the law (or the agreement of the parties) may permit a non-unanimous verdict. A "specific finding" pertains to a type of verdict rendered in a
jury trial. A
judge may direct questions at the
jury to be answered as part of its deliberations. These questions are meant to guide the jury through the facts of the case or the elements of each claim that must be proven. The answers returned by the jury, the specific findings, are then used to resolve the case as a matter of law. A jury's deliberations are conducted in private, out of sight and hearing of the judge, litigants, witnesses, and others in the courtroom. Not every case is eligible for a jury trial. For example, in the majority of U.S. states there is no right to a jury trial in family law actions not involving a termination of parental rights, such as divorce and custody modifications. As of 1978, eleven U.S. states allow juries in any aspect of divorce litigation, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. Most of these limit the right to a jury to try issues regarding grounds or entitlement for divorce only. Texas provides jury trial rights most broadly, including even the right to a jury trial on questions regarding child custody. However, anyone who is charged with a criminal offense, breach of contract or federal offence has a Constitutional right to a trial by jury.
Civil trial procedure The right to trial by jury in a civil case in federal court is addressed by the
Seventh Amendment. Importantly, however, the Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a right to a civil jury trial in state courts (although most state constitutions guarantee such a right). The Seventh Amendment provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." In
Joseph Story's 1833 treatise
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, he wrote, "[It is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty." The Seventh Amendment does not guarantee or create any right to a jury trial; rather, it preserves the right to jury trial in the federal courts that existed in 1791 at common law. In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in
equity. Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action—the civil action", which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury; in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury. However,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c) allows a court to use one at its discretion. To determine whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791, one must first look at the type of action and whether such an action was considered "legal" or "equitable" at that time. Next, the relief being sought must be examined. Monetary damages alone were purely a legal remedy, and thus entitled to a jury. Non-monetary remedies such as
injunctions,
rescission, and
specific performance were all
equitable remedies, and thus up to the judge's discretion, not a jury. In
Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, , the
US Supreme Court discussed the right to a jury, holding that when both equitable and legal claims are brought, the right to a jury trial still exists for the legal claim, which would be decided by a jury before the judge ruled on the equitable claim. There is not a United States constitutional right under the Seventh Amendment to a jury trial in state courts, but in practice, almost every state except Louisiana, which has a civil law legal tradition, permits jury trials in civil cases in state courts on substantially the same basis that they are allowed under the Seventh Amendment in federal court. The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part. The court determines the right to jury based on all claims by all parties involved. If the plaintiff brings only equitable claims but the defendant asserts counterclaims of law, the court grants a jury trial. In accordance with Beacon Theaters, the jury first determines the facts, then the judge enter judgment on the equitable claims. Following the English tradition, U.S. juries have usually been composed of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict has usually been required to be unanimous. However, in many jurisdictions, the number of jurors is often reduced to a lesser number (such as five or six) by legislative enactment, or by agreement of both sides. Before
Ramos v. Louisiana, a 2020 Supreme Court ruling, some jurisdictions permitted a verdict to be returned despite the dissent of one, two, or three jurors. Subsequently, all jurisdictions required unanimity to reach a verdict.
Waiver of jury trial The vast majority of U.S.
criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by
plea bargain. Both
prosecutors and
defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by
negotiation resulting in a plea bargain. If the defendant waives a jury trial, a
bench trial is held. For civil cases, a jury trial must be demanded within a certain period of time per
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38. In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial. Per
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant waive a jury trial for criminal cases. However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial, and it has become commonplace to find such a waiver in routine contracts as a 2004
Wall Street Journal article states: The article goes on to claim: In the years since this 2004 article, this practice has become pervasive in the US and, especially in online agreements, it has become commonplace to include such waivers to trial by jury in everything from user agreements attached to software downloads to merely browsing a website. This practice, however, means that while such waivers may have legal force in one jurisdiction—in this case the United States—in the jurisdiction where a verdict is sought in the absence of jury trial (or indeed the presence of a defendant, or any legal representation
in absentia) may well run directly counter to law in the jurisdiction—such as the United Kingdom—where the defendant resides, thus: The judgment on
R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 issued by the United Kingdom's
House of Lords states (in part, in Item 55) "the issue has to be determined by looking at the way in which the courts handled the problem under English criminal procedure and by deciding whether, in the result, the appellant can be said to have had a fair hearing."
Jury trials: terminating parental rights Only five of the 50 states require or permit jury trials for cases where the state is seeking to legally sever a parent-child relationship. Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In Virginia, the jury is called an "advisory jury". The remaining 46 jurisdictions have case law or statutes or local court rules or common practice that specifically prohibits a jury trial in termination of parental rights cases. The fate of a family is exclusively placed in the hands of a single judge when there is no jury trial. ==References==