Talk:Jury

Removed these

Moving cleverly cynical but completely NPOV quote from article: save it for an article on Mencken:

"Quote:

"Jury - A group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have failed to fool him." -H.L. Mencken " Vicki Rosenzweig 14:28 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Removed this:

In criminal cases, the right to a jury trial belongs to the defendant; if the defendant decides he or she is likely to do better without a jury, the prosecution cannot insist on one.

That is not the law in all jurisdictions. In Federal Court, for example, the US must waive trial by jury as well as the defendant. 209.149.235.241 20:41, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

History on the use of a jury

How about a history in the use of a civil jury to decide for or against? - Jerryseinfeld 19:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added the Cleanup-clarity tag because the article as it stands is pretty confusing due to the lack of structure. At the very least, it needs some headings beside the ones that already exist. Martg76 02:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edited "Jury Nullification" entry to expand and clarify section on England & Wales. Original stated that an acquittal brought about by jury equity was a binding precedent and could change the law. I have softened this slightly. Juries (in criminal trials) sit only in the Crown Court (the lowest of the courts of record). A jury verdict does not set a binding precedent - after all, the jury does not deliver a judgment, so the ratio of the decision is completely unknown. The Clive Ponting decision has been interpreted as a rejection by the jury of the judge's direction on the test of public interest, and is therefore pursuasive authority on the point, but as it would be a contempt of court to ask any of the jurors and publish their reasons, we can never know. (RJ 26 SEP 2006)

US-specific

A lot of the information seems US-specific. It should be clearly differentiated. Plus, we already have jury trial. I think that all things on trials should be sent to jury trial, and we should keep issues like jury selection, indemnification etc. here. David.Monniaux 19:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this page should provide a more generalised view, with country-specific items on the relevant country-specific pages. LaudanumCoda 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Page organization

Let's see if we can think of a better organizational structure for the info here and in jury trial:

Jury

1. Composition
2. Procedure
3. National practices

Jury trial

1. Availability / Power / Usage
   1. Criminal cases
   2. Lawsuits
2. Frequency
3. Advantages and disadvantages
4. National practices

• I've made a first stab above, feel free to edit it. 70.58.216.243 00:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good start, except instead of "criminal cases" and "lawsuits", I'd just do with "criminal" and "civil". Tufflaw 01:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think maybe both should be merged into "jury trial" with a redirect from "jury". I have some time coming up soon, maybe I'll start working on that. Tufflaw 01:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

England and Wales

Was not the right of a peer to trial in the House of Lords abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1948? Avalon 11:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you're right - I checked the Act. Will change.

Australia

A quibble:

What are the "unusual practices" in Australian jury trials, I assume they are pretty much the same as in, say England, Wales and New Zealand. Avalon 22:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

On that note - why is there a link to "National practice: Australia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury#Australia) which doesn't go anywhere? Is this content still around somewhere? (I had a quick look, but couldn't find it.) Assuming this content isn't anywhere else, should this whole line be removed?) Rarosalion

It didn't lead anywhere, so it's begone. And I'd side with Avalon, when I was called up a few years ago, there were about 50 of us, a few got off by arguing with the judge, and a few were quickly rejected without discussion by who I assume were the counsels.--Paul 17:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Juries

The concept of a modern jury trial stems back to Magna Carta, where the right was given in England for nobles to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgement by the king.

While this may be the origin of the concept of modern trials, should there be no mention of the Athenian trial by peers, which could include juries of several hundred free men, such as the Trial of Socrates? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarity

I agree the clarity of the article is not sufficient. It certainly was very confusing to me, being from a country (India) that no longer has a jury process - the overview section needs to be clarified and take a more bird's-eye view so that it serves to orient the reader first, rather than plunge right into the details.

I found the jury trial article to be more useful and helpful for people referring up "jury" for the first time. I vote that these two articles be merged completely.

Hallmark of a Democracy

A jury is also a hallmark of a democracy, since its membership is meant<br /> Insert non-formatted text here<big>^{Big text}_{{| class="wikitable" |- ! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text !! Header text |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example || Example |}}</big>

Arguments for and against use of jury system

Id like to see a section listing the Arguments for and against use of jury system. Most people strongly believe that jury trials are the only possible way of holding a fair trial but there are many countries which dont use them. Among the possible arguments "against" that spring to mind are the inexperience/lack of knowledge of jurors and whether they are able to deal with complex trials, The ease of jury tampering/intimidation, the practical difficulties that sometimes arise in selecting a jury and/or assessing an individuals suitability for jury service, The disruption to jurors personal lives (especially during long trials) and the fact that miscarriages of justice are hardly an unknown phenomonen with jury trials. I would also like to see an explanation of the interpretation/meaning of the term "jury of ones peers". 87.112.89.232 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a large school of thought that today the media replaces the original purpose of the jury. That school says that the real purpose of the jury in the past was to publicize criminal activity to government law enforcement and the results of the justice process back to the ordinary people, particularly in the days before newspaper. Such people point out that well into the 17th century judges and nobles routinely engaged in heavy handed jury tampering thus proving that fact finding was only gilt on the true ancient purpose of a jury to witness for those unable to attend the proceedings. These people would say that the modern jury then went through a period where they validated the judges and prosecutor's thinking and that independent arrival at verdict evolved only during the 1800s. Not sure I buy their argument entirely. But the media certainly contaminates lots of juries from unbiased fact finding. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a need for a section on the advantages and disadvantages to societies of recognizing the civil right of trial by jury. Perhaps the greatest civil right that the People of China presently lack is this civil right. If this single civil right were introduced today, within a few decades most or all of the other missing rights would be acquired. Tyrants always rule with the active assistance of judges, but never with juries.

Hmmm and lots of the US would like to remove or limit civil trials as too disruptive. What an irony. Still the important consideration is that civil courts originally dealt primarily with corporations and companies as legal entities under capitalism and the enforcement of contracts - not personal rights. The US Constitution in particular was a messy compromise. The extension of civil courts into liability for personal matters and damage outside of breach of contract may have been a terrible mistake in that a small number of people can essentially pass pseudo-laws via the concept of precedent and the awarding of huge settlements. I suspect the contributors above is in particular thinking about personal lawsuits against damaging government actions since they see civil law as lever to get all other rights. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As for non-legal complexities, the average judge knows less of technical subjects than do the juries that try the facts of the cases. There seems to be no study that suggests that judges are better educated or smarter than jurors, (apart from their legal educations). If a case can be made with some acual objective studies for support - fine.

A discussion of "jury of one's peers" will necessarily focus on one, or perhaps a few nations. It should be a seperate article, because it will be too lengthy (if done properly) to fit within this article.

Raggz 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

missing is any mention how juries can be overturned when their verdict shocks the conscience, when

it was based on bigotry, and also missing is how many juries convict someone who is later found innocentJuror1 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ref: average judge knows less than jury about non-legal technical matters. Sometimes. But that ignores that any experienced judge has likely heard many similar cases with technical expert testimony and the randomly selected jury is usually having their first exposure. Juries are not selected based on technical expertise for trials in most countries (please list those that do so). In fact where the defense can examine and reject jurors, those potential jurors with technical expertise are almost uniformly rejected. Furthermore in the US juries aren't supposed to use personal technical knowledge even if they have it. If the prosecution/complainant lawyer and their experts cannot make it clear based on in court testimony alone, then the jury is supposed to accept lies as legally true and acquit. So the dummies that can make a big difference at trial are only supposed to sit behind the complainant/prosecutor's bench (and in smaller communities or where elected instead of appointed, they often do). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the US "jury of one's peers" probably originally meant people of your own social and economic status. Remember democracy was a distant second choice to mercantile capitalism under King George Washington or King Ben Franklin. Of course the capitalists couldn't agree on anyone else to trust among their number when these two refused. Thus democracy sprang up from the intellectual hot head circles (Thomas Paine etc) as the compromise solution. However this was still meant to be a Democracy of the elite. The electoral college and many other features of the US constitution were meant to keep the "riff raff" out of all but the most local politics. Thus it is pretty obvious that the original intent was that fishermen should be judged by fishermen and the wealthy by those of similar wealth. However, it didn't take long for the common man to see his opportunity especially since most areas in early America didn't have the numbers for anything but jury by the common man.

Unfortunately as the US goes the way of the Roman Empire, "jury by one's peers" increasingly tends to mean trial by one's own subculture: whereever a defendant expects to find a sympathetic public opinion maximizing their chances of jury nullification based on race or sex or economic level or drug habits or whatever. Some are even appealing that only convicts of one's own race can fairly try someone. (Like the majority will buy off on that in the near future - but some day they may. It sure would be a put down to be convicted and make appeal senseless.) 69.23.124.142 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jury versus Jury Trial

While a Jury Trial certainly involves a Jury, they are two distinctly different terms with two distinctly different definitions. The Jury is the group of individuals selected to sit and listen to evidence, the Jury Trial is the process by which the Jury is involved, rather than a Trial by Judge or other "trials".

Under British Common Law and especially by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America jury trials are a civil right, civil liberty and human right. Raggz 06:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Selection

It's also worth noting that in at least some jurisdictions [TN for one], that if someone is dismissed from the pool with cause [such as friend or family of the defendent or victim], they won't wait for the jury pool to be exhausted during the without-cause challenges and will instead stop the process, add a replacement, ask him or her the same set of questions that have been asked of the rest of the pool so far, and then continue with the interview of the jury pool. Joncnunn 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)the prblems with the system are unlike no others anywhere..a reform judge L.Bellmore tryed to make changes in the system at the 7th. appeals court with no results..known was he as a shake judge the system was just to enbedded for change..he retired very young as judges go..he has infact stayed on in the state of florida as a special justice..

Compensation

The article says nothing of compensation for a juror's service. I figure this varies widely between jurisdictions and countries, but an overview is necessary, especially considering that jury duty is nigh compulsory. Any new section would also need to detail protections put in place for jurors in regards to employment, as work is missed while serving on a jury. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientific jury selection

I'm planning on writing an article on scientific jury selection (SJS). SJS is a marginal topic, but I have all these sources just sitting here from research I did for my mentor. I might integrate it as a section in Peremptory challenge. My sources are all from the U.S., so I'll note the bias. If anyone has any sources that would help me internationalize this, I'd appreciate it. Any other thoughts?--Chaser T 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And more than a year later: Scientific jury selection.--chaser - t 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What nothing on the idea of Professional juror? <Grin> 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers of jurors to intervene during trial

Do individual jurors have the right to interrupt a trial in order to ask questions of counsel and witnesses ? Ive heard that they do (in UK law) but that most people dont realise this and that its rarely explained to jurors that they can do this ?

Instructions by judges to jurors

One Often hears at the end of a trial of a judge "directing" a jury to Find a client guilty/not guilty. Can a juror ignore such an instruction and what happens if they do ?

The judge can't direct a guilty verdict, only a not guilty verdict. It means that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence. In the United States, the jury is no longer involved. In England and Wales, the jury is expected to comply. In the unlikely event that it refuses, another jury would be found, and so on. Another fun quirk: in England and Wales, if a defendant doesn't enter a plea when prompted, but remains mute, a jury must be assembled to determine whether he can speak and is refusing, or is unable to speak. 72.75.76.21 (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of jurours required to reach a verdict

Why is it that in some trials a unanimous verdict is required to convict a defendent and in others a three quarters, two thirds or even simple majority is sufficent ? How is this decided and what criteria are used ?

87.112.89.232 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the US the unanimous verdict is for any criminal charge and the fractional jury verdicts come from various states different civil (tort) trials...though I think some states break up civil cases by type of civil suit (contract breach vs personal injury vs etc) or amount of award. However, I suspect that lots of other countries use fractional juries for criminal cases.

In fact I believe that lots of Islamic countries blur the line between civil and criminal court because of religious considerations: e.g. breach of contract is also means you lied or stole either of which is a major sin under Islam. Cutting off a hand is criminal court almost everwhere else. I could easily be wrong about that and would like hear more correct info on that if available. But all in all you better be able to live up to every contract in Islamic lands or be good friends willing to accept alternate compensation later if unexpected problems cause breach. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Allotment to Jury

Hi, I read the article, I thought there ought to be a link to articles on random selection by allotment which would take the reader to other links notably Athenian democracy. It looks like someone else has already added it later on! So, I've taken it out from the first line.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure whether a jury must be allotted, or whether there are some jurisdictions where they are selected by some other method.Mike 16:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Selection by electoral roll?

I don't think the random jury selection process in the US is based on electoral rolls (at least not in Cook County, Illinois, where I currently live). I am a nonimmigrant visitor to the United States, with a 30-month J1 visa, and I recently received a jury summons notice. The notice stated that non-Citizens should call the Jury Administration to have their summons cancelled. Since I am certainly not on any electoral roll in the US, I must have been selected using other data, such as my Social Security number (however, the SSA should know I am a nonimmigrant, because they printed "Not Authorized to Work" on my card). One of my colleagues received a similar notice last year, and he is also not a US citizen - so the situation is not unusual. Mtford 06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Like everything in the US such things vary by state and even county or city. Tax rolls or public utilities are also common means. Anything that can gather a current census-like list of people versus mail addresses. Perhaps as prisons become more and more like exclusive clubs for the gangsta generation, they pull juries from prisons to vote people in. <Grin> 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that electoral roll is NOT always the sole source of prospective jury members - indeed, some counties use driver's licenses as a source for people to send out jury summons. Gautam ^Discuss 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Jury

I noticed the article said something like juries have a fixed number (normally twelve though 6 in special cases). As far as I am aware this is specific to US juries. Scottish juries e.g. have 15 members and I don't believe the UK ever has less than 12 on a jury (though I've not checked). I couldn't work out an easy formula for "normally 12, but scottish 15, but sometimes less.", So I wrote it out in longhand! --Mike 12:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jury Nullification

I've added some information on the trial of the earl of strathmore to jury nullification because it is a nice clear cut case which shows the dilema of the jury. (Would anyone want to hang a man who killed someone purely by accident?)

--Mike 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to pursue a wrongful death lawsuit for an accidental death? In fact it was actually quite common to kill folk for clearly accidental deaths in the earlier middle ages, either out of rage/grief at a loss or because it was believed that due care was not exercised. Of course blood money was also sometimes practiced in some places at varioius times for both murder and accidental death as well (especially for nobles versus peasants). In fact the Strathmore case is probably more significant for triggering the beginning of the rise of criminal manslaughter laws -- both involuntary (just incompetent or stupidly careless) /voluntary (knowingly careless) -- for causing deaths short of malicious murder.69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"finder of fact"

The following paragraph is contradictory:

In common law countries such as England and the United States, the role of the jury is the "finder of fact", while the Judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. Occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.

If the jury is the "finder of fact" then it does not have the right of jury nullification. If it can pass a verdict contrary to the facts (as in the original scottish "Not Guilty" verdict) then then it is not just a finder of fact. The argument is neatly summed up in the Scottish "Not guilty" vs. "Not proven". The first is a statment of guilt irrespective of the facts, the second is a statment of fact.

I've had to tone down the statement "is the 'finder of fact'" to "is described as the 'finder of fact'", since this is undoubtedly true whilst the former isn't (in theory or practice!) --Mike 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Finder of Fact Theory on this page is incomplete. In State v. Brailsford, Justice John Jay stated, “It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that, by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” It should also be noted that where a thing cannot be taken away or punishment meted out for the doing of that thing, it naturally follows that a right exists. The several courts call the right of jury nullification, the power of jury nullification. But this is a self serving distinction without substance. A jury has a right to vote not guilty even where the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The State cannot appeal an acquittal. The Court cannot punish a juror for a not guilty verdict. Finally there is a distinction between the power of court to influence the jury and a jurors inalienable right to determine to his or her own satisfaction the guilt of an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.118.196 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jury box

"Jury box" redirects here, but there is no information in the article on jury boxes. -- Beland 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Details on OJ Simpson trial

Jury selection, and defense attorney Johnny Cochran's mastery of it, was decisive in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. [...] His recently written almost-confession was one of the targets of the lawyers trying to collect damages. Its recent cancellation makes the matter moot.

This block of text, under the 'Selection' heading appears to be entirely unsourced, and could be considered NPOV. I'm reluctant to remove or edit such a huge section myself... would someone with more experience editing this article take a look at it, please? Timcowlishaw 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Grand juries

The start of the article mentions petit (trial) juries, but does not give any references to the concept of grand juries (formed for the purpose of deciding whether there is a case to answer).

History

There is no mention of the history of jury trials, only of present day situation

Change

I made the change here [1] because it is misleading or at least confusing to say "cause an innocent man to die". The law at the time meant he was guilty of murder. While this seems rather strange to us, it was the law and so it's arguable if he was an innocent man. The jury choose to ignore the law. While they undoutedly made the right decision rather then editorialising, it seems best to just summarise the facts, rather then say sya he's innocent Nil Einne 07:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

US Juries

Conversely, jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in strict confidence. Whether this non-disclosure requirement extends after the verdict has been rendered depends on the jurisdiction. In English law, the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trail or verdict, is considered to be contempt of court, a criminal offence and can result in imprisonment. In the United States, this rule does not apply, and sometimes jurors have made remarks that called into question whether a verdict was properly arrived at.

Blue ribbon jury merge

Have noticed that the article Blue ribbon jury has been tagged for merger with this article since August 2006. Seems like a good idea. If there is no dissent, perhaps someone could do this - I don't feel comfortable enough with the subject and/or article to make it happen. Thanks ZueJay (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

in jury

For someone who can, possibly you could scribe an article regarding "sentencing jury". About those nations, states, counties, that employ the concept. How can such a jury be segregated from the trial's publicity, wherever such a secondary jury might be declared appropriate??

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

The large, unwikified, unsourced section called trial jury size needs many, many sources to back the claims it is making. Gentgeen (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it--well, most of it. Putting a tag is really not adequate in this sort of situation. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Selection and Experience

I feel like this article needs to talk at least a little about how jurors are selected and what are the grounds that a juror can be changed? Is jury duty mandatory? If so, what are the exceptions? How does Jury duty affect the livelihoods of people selected?

Just thought these are pretty important aspects of this topic that should be explored. --Cacofonie (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Came here looking for info on Federal vs. State/Local US jury selection. 71.186.172.82 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another area to be included are the wages a juror also gets in the various regions. I'll find some sources soon & add them in. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Globalize template

I can't see exactly where (if anywhere) this is discussed here, but we should keep in mind that around 90% of jury trials occur in the US,^[2] so in this case a bit of apparent US-centrism might be okay. Richard001 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

US: Federal vs state/city juries

I just saw an episode of The Wire that discussed the difference between city and federal juries (in Baltimore) -- mainly that the racial makeup would be different. I assume this means that the area the jury is drawn from is different -- is there any info on this distinction that could be added to this article? --Padraic 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Coroner's jury?

It seems an odd omission that there is nothing in this article about the coroner's jury. Unfortunately I don't know much more about that institution than one learns from watching Vertigo, and the WP article is so terribly sketchy that I couldn't work out how to work a link to it into this article. (Could put it in "See also", I guess, but I think there should be more exposition than that.) Can anyone help? --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All I know is from Da Vinci's Inquest.--Padraic 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite needed for percentage of civil cases that go to trial

There is no cite for the following clause: "only about 2% of civil cases go to trial, with only about half of those trials being conducted before juries." Also, it should be specified whether this statistic pertains to federal cases only or to all civil cases in the U.S. 19:25, 10 March 2011 75.79.2.78 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sequestration

Since Sequestration is now a disambiguation page, I've re-pointed links in several articles to the red link Jury sequestration. It would probably be a good idea to add a section to this article addressing the subject and then creating a redirect at Jury sequestration to point to the section. Nick Number (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost anyone can be called to jury duty - including "professionals"

"Juries are composed of jurors (also sometimes known as jurymen), who are by definition illiterates in the law and finders of fact, not professionals."

1. I don't know what the word "illiterates" means in this context. 2. This is not true. Professionals may be on juries. lawyers, people who work in a court, investigators, law enforcement personnel, etc. may all be called to jury duty. Whether they are chosen to be on a particular jury may vary. There is no hard rule that "professionals" may not be on a jury. --Blumrosen (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)--Blumrosen (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Most jurisdictions have legislation, regulations, or rules that at a minimum prevent lawyers from being on juries. However, a reliable source to support this would be a good idea. Singularity42 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations Needed

Multiple sections of the article have no citations.

The material appears to be rather legitimate, but no citations for further research. Civil Rights5 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

South Africa

§ Can I ask for advice regarding the following edit? It has been removed twice with no advice given for making it acceptable:
South Africa has an extradition agreement with the United Kingdom but its abolition of the jury system has been maintained. Inconsistent results were provided recently by two judges who were considering the same crime. In the first trial, the judge sentenced three men on the assumption that Shrien Dewani was their conspirator. In the second trial, the case against Dewani as murder conspirator was thrown out.) Dewani's four-year ordeal (detention in two countries and worldwide media exposure) and expensive trial administration arose from prosecution by means of a "plea and sentencing agreement" which included no credible witnesses. Gerrytlloyd (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

for background information only:

South Africa still uses an apartheid era system, with optional adjustments.
The attempt to incarcerate Shrien Dewani (2010 to 2014) shows that any person can still be made suspect by procedural habits that gain strength in the absence of a jury system. A Cape Town lawyer (da Grass) could incriminate Dewani with just a few impossible statements from a taxi driver and two of his criminal accomplices (who say they witnessed a contract to kill being made, but were obviously in different places at the time stated, and never met Dewani.) The plea bargain that enabled the detention of Dewani (in Britain) had no validation from any credible witness (in South Africa).

Two South Africans enjoy lighter sentences through the plea bargain, and one remains free. Da Grass would have promised them that the bargain would not be cancelled later, if the case against Dewani were thrown out. Da Grass had a financial incentive and the hijack conspirators could only gain by cooperating with him. Dewani's four-year ordeal (detention in England and South Africa, international media exposure) and some expensive court administration were solely attributable to one man's desire to exploit the trial system for financial gain. (bit. ly/MugTaxi offers a detailed construction.)

In 1969, "abolition" of the jury system made it easier for judges to imprison people who rebelled against apartheid. Things remain as the Nationalists left them, but with optional additions to 'compensate' for the lack of jury (the existing rulers might likewise enjoy the ease with which undesirables can be detained?)

Canada

Removed the line about civil juries in Canada not being able to "award damage" I have no idea what that is a reference to but it is certainly not true. Canadian juries (at least in the common law provinces) can and do make damage awards for all sorts of claims, and are employed in car accident litigation with some regularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.128.228 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111222143058/http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6337.aspx to http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6337.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120427204517/http://www.ncsconline.org:80/WC/CourTopics/StateLinks.asp?id=47&topic=JurMan to http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/CourTopics/StateLinks.asp?id=47&topic=JurMan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128052243/http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/July/20090706164826ebyessedo0.4126551.html to http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/July/20090706164826ebyessedo0.4126551.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531215646/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=75587&sessionId=18652243&skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true to http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=75587&sessionId=18652243&skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007220413/http://www.acslaw.org/node/6789 to http://www.acslaw.org/node/6789

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925045004/http://www.wantage.com/museum/Local_History/Wantage%20Church%20History.pdf to http://www.wantage.com/museum/Local_History/Wantage%20Church%20History.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518065947/http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cr/2006/6cr22moj040108.pdf to http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cr/2006/6cr22moj040108.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719013900/http://lawweb.usc.edu/users/dklerman/documents/Klerman.Self-informing.pdf to http://lawweb.usc.edu/users/dklerman/documents/Klerman.Self-informing.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1987/1987canlii53/1987canlii53.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canlii.ca/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii31916/2004canlii31916.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Out of date?

"Jury trials in complex fraud cases have been described by some members and appointees of the Labour Party as expensive and time-consuming". But (1) If you go to the main article on juries in England and Wales, there's no mention of any of this. (2) It is unclear that it is important enough to be in the brief summary of English juries in the present article. (3) Also, it is unclear whether it is current Labour policy or only the policy of the last Labour government, which left government 8 years ago. 5.80.55.112 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)