Talk:Jury trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk put in the main article under United States[edit]

I found the following text under a {{inappropriate tone}} tag IN THE ARTICLE. This is appalling. Please remember that anything related to ώchanging the article belongs here except the new words themselves!! Jake95(talk!) 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • How can this guy write a whole section on the right to a jury trial and not mention that the 7th amendment does not gurantee or create any right to a jury trial, it preserves the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law. At common law means, in that context, in England. In England, in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity, the former came with a right to a jury, the later did not. Modernly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 says there shall be one form of action, a civil action, and no legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury. Today, in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury, even though FRCP 39c allows a court to use one at its discretion. The test for whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791 is a research nightmere. First you look to the type of action it is, interpleaders, class actions, etc... were purely equity inventions. Second, you look at the relief sought, damages were purely legal even though equity could order them, but injunctions, rescission, specific performance were all equitable remedies.
Need to know more? Check the main cases on point: Beacon Theatres 359 US 500, Dairy Queen 369 US 469, Ross 396 US 531
  • Although it is written in an inappropriate tone, he does have a valid point. The right to a jury is not guaranteed in civil cases. In the legal field, this is actually an ambiguous and controversial issue. Besides the wrong tone of voice, everything he said is valid, and should be addressed in the article. It might possibly be enough to warrant a new subheading or article which specifically addresses the 'right to a jury', and where this right comes from. (i.e. relevant U.S. Constitution amendments and case law.) CougRoyalty (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)who cares?

Jury trial benefits[edit]

Q: What are the advantages of the jury trial? It's urgent

A: All members of the jury must find the defendant guilty, special circumstances excepting, or the defendant is considered not guilty. However, if found guilty, the defendant must pay for court costs. (anon)

Trial by jury / Jury trial[edit]

So is this the same as a trial by jury or not? If not, make trial by jury not a redirect here. Evercat 02:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair question. This is simply an issue of semantics; most state constitutions use the language interchangably. Folajimi 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

June 19, 2006 Wikipedia says in the paragraph entitled: United States:

In the United States every person accused of a Felony has a constitutional right to a trial by jury. However, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT designate only a person charged with a Felony having this right, therefore, it sounds to me that todays Judiciary is taking the law upon themselves to circumvent what the U. S. Constitution says. The Fourteenth Amendment plainly says, which Wikipedia writes: "In ALL criminal prosecutions (ALL, NOT only Felonies)the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

The U.S. Constitution is quite plain in what it is saying and I don't see it giving ANY authority for ANY Jurist to Circumvent this Supreme Law of the Land. Todays judiciary are often circumventing the law, rather than following the law, thereby making their own UNLAWFUL LAWS at the expense of the individual! I'm surprised that Wikipedia stated the Felony clause as a fact, rather than a circumvention of what the Supreme Law of the Land says.

I believe that rather than following the constitutional law, the judiciary prefers to be expedient in their reckless ways to deny the non-felon his rights as if it doesn't matter, it is only a missdemeanor, whereas to the defendant, it most certainly matters. His/Her life is not to be toyed with as if inconsequential Sluffing the defendant's rights off as if it is meaningless to the judiciary.

Disagree with merge notice[edit]

This is a type of trial as opposed to a bench trial and should be it's own article I think. The topics should avoid overlap as much as possible, but I think they are distinct topics. I didn't want to remove the merge notice if someone felt strongly about it though. - Taxman 18:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, this is a very distinct topic. I'm going to remove the merge notice. - Jersyko talk 01:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've put up a new suggestion to merge, not with Trial, but with Jury. There's really A LOT of overlap with that page. 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Does not discuss the origin of trial by jury, introduced by Athenian lawgiver Solon. Nor does the article discuss the historical trial by jury in Greece, or B.C. in general.

Does anyone know enough about this to write a reasonable section?? I doubt it. Jake95(talk!) 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Juries[edit]

[moved my question from Talk:Jury, although I see it's similar to the post above]

The article mentions only the Magna Carta as the beginning of Jury Trials.

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) 09:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Jury instructions stub seems to need merging[edit]

Jury instructions doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I don't think it deserves an article all its own. What do you think? Mrees1997 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be merged or dropped in a French legal system article. Calwatch 07:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Important Clarification[edit]

The 7th amendment does not generally apply to the there is no Constitutional right to a jury trial in state civil cases, except where enforcing a fed right... I added this to the text. I hope this clarifies for those who are unclear about the state v. fed Constitution.... and the rights accorded to citizens as incorporated into the 14th Amendment due process clause (thus applying to the states). The 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases is one of those few exceptions that did not become part of the bill of rights. THat is why many states have added a right to a jury trial in civil cases to their state constitutions. jgwlaw 04:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Trial by Jury[edit]

I probably should have mentioned this at the time, but I was fairly new, and didn't think of it: I've changed the redirect of Trial by jury to direct to the near-identical Trial by Jury - the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, under the principle that a change in capitalisation shouldn't send you to wildly differing places, with, of course, a disambiguator at the top of the opera. Is it agreed that this is correct? Adam Cuerden talk 07:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Other countries[edit]

I added this section and started it by briefly mentioning the situation in Russia. It seems to me it would be a valuable resource to have a definitive list of countries that currently have jury trials. There should really also be a list of countries that have introduced and then abandoned jury trial at one time or another.


In Poland there's a jury system like in France. For example in murder case there are 2 professional judges and 3 jurrors. In America it is stupid. I hate it how they do it. Poland Is so much better than every other country.

  1. Do you have any sources of this information? Do you live in Poland?

Jake95(talk!) 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. Yes I live in Poland. The jurrors are elected by the town councils in secret elections. However the social factor in criminal and family cases are decreased by bill that passed this year.--Vaultsuit 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Finding of Fact?[edit]

The article states that a verdict is a finding of fact. That is incorect. It is a mixed finding of law and fact. Thus the verdict is Guilty or Not Guilty. The jury does not state, the person did X, Y and Z, leaving the question of guilt or inocence up to the judge. If they did that would be a pure finding of fact. 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Consider the question of fact article. "In law, a question of fact (also known as a point of fact) is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles."
In the US the jury is instructed on all the elements and questions of law. If questions of law arise later, the judge offers additional instruction. The verdict is thus not a "mixed finding" in the US. Are we discussing US law? If not, please amend the article to correct it and include the jurisdictions that you are discussing. If you are certain that this is the case in the US, please correct that as well. Raggz 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro para[edit]

I have put in a brief introductory para as the article previously launched into things without explaining what a jury trial was. Fat Red 05:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Jury Trials[edit]

The first sentence launches right in without even mentioning the context. One has to assume there is a missing introduction along the lines of "In Roman times..."? I'm not remotely qualified to write this, but hopefully someone will? Maxplanar (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Returning here, I find it's been updated, but now we meet the word dikaste without an immediate explanation of what it means. This article is confusing and poorly written as yet. Maxplanar (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanton v. North Las Vegas[edit]

The case Blanton v. North Las Vegas had its own subheading under the United States heading. I deleted it since: 1) there is no reference to the relevance of this case, and 2) it is far too specific, discussing a minor common law rule for the right to a jury in a criminal trial, that need not be mentioned in a general article about jury trials. If someone thinks this case should stay in, I guess there just needs to be more clarification over it's importance. CougRoyalty (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


There was a section-stub marker on the Canada section; I've removed it and put in a summary of the linked-to article. Can a Canadian please give it a san-check? Thanks! Rosuav (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jury members abstaining[edit]

  1. In which jurisdictions is a jury member allowed to abstain from voting?
  2. Where abstention is allowed, how does this affect the calculation of any required majority or unanimous votes?
    • any info?

jnestorius(talk) 04:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This page complimented in a decision by the Uk High Court[edit]

"26. On the other hand, as the Commissioner's interim report pointed out, jury trial is not seen as essential in other parts of the world, nor under Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. Mr Crow also fairly makes the points that the great majority of criminal offences are tried without a jury, and that it is hard to point to a principled basis for drawing a clear line. (For those interested, the Wikipedia entry on jury trial has a surprisingly full, comparative treatment of the issue. The "positive belief" about jury trial in the US, is contrasted with sentiment in other countries in which it is considered "bizarre and risky" for issues of liberty to be entrusted to untrained laymen.)" 20th May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with jury[edit]

There's really a ton of overlap between jury trial and jury. Jury is really about the juries used in jury trials (it doesn't really cover grand juries), and I think they should be merged. II | (t - c) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly, but if so the merge should go the other direction from what is currently suggested in the templates. To be explicit, merge jury trial into jury, not jury into jury trial. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be willing to go that way too, although I don't see why it's a big deal either way. II | (t - c) 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's just kind of incongruous to have an article about the specific term when there's no article about the general one. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree because (a) much more can be added to this section (b) if someone wanta to know about a jury trial cross references can lead them there (c) I am working on grand jury subject (d) and, a combined topic would be large and difficult for a layman to get through. Books are written about jury trials and this is a subject separate from what a jury is in the same sense that other subjects in common law are treated differently such as a jury trial and a judge trial. (Jurycom (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't know that they should be merged so much as re-evaluated and modified. A jury trial should be explained for what it is followed by the way it is implemented or allowed in various countries/regions. It should detail more of the specifics - outcomes and nuances and such - and be a much longer article than the article detailing a jury specific.
Meanwhile, the jury article should explain what a jury consists of in the various countries (peers, magistrates, judges, etc). I really don't see how that should wind up being very long.
--K10wnsta (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

need to have a map[edit]

there are soo many countries which have jury system.we need a simple diagrammatic representation.can anyone create a map. (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone disagrees:[edit]

"Although it says and or by the law of the land, this in no manner can be interpreted as if it were enough to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen." This is a rather perfunctory and unsupported statement - as is the whole section.

Blackstone describes the four contemporary methods of criminal process in 1215: presentment, indictment, information, and appeal. 4 Black c. 23. Information was itself divided into two parts: those initiated by the King in emergency (threats to the crown); and those initiated by master of the crown-office. The latter are "any grofs and notorious mifdemefsnors, riots, batteries, libels, and other immoralities of an atrocious kind . . . which, on account of their magnitude or pernicious example, deferve the moft public animadverfion." Id. at 309. Information were actions initiated by the crown or on behalf of the crown and were widely accepted process for initiating criminal procedures both before and after the Magna Carta.

Indeed, authors have interpreted this section differently than the wikipedia article. See, e. g., McKenchnie, William Sharp (Ed.), Magnat Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction (Glasgow: Maclehose, 1914). There is a vast difference between grand juries, trials by a jury of the peers, (contemporary) common law, and due process. A difference that this section alternately glosses over and mashes together.

Similarly, the passage on self-informing is a gross overstatement that conflates "presentment" with "indictment" and ignores the role of the officers after a presentment.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure this section is lifted without proper attribution.

Cannoneerc Cannoneerc (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Vicky Pryce Trial - Jury's 10 questions undemines system[edit]

The case of Vicky Pryce on trial for accepting her husband's sppeding ticket produced a series of extraordinary questions from the Jury including one asking if the jury can base their decision based on evidence not presnted in Court. (Coachtripfan (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC))

South Africa[edit]

§ I would like to add the first two paragraphs below, indented, to the Article section "4 The jury trial in various jurisdictions". Can I get advice re. making it acceptable to other editors? It has been deleted twice

The attempt to incarcerate Shrien Dewani (2010 to 2014)[1][2][3] 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[4]) 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.[5]) The "plea and sentencing agreement" that enabled the detention of Dewani (in Britain) had no validation from any credible witness (in South Africa).[6]

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.[7][8] 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[9][10] 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 [11] (the existing rulers might likewise enjoy the ease with which undesirables can be detained?)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jury trial. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jury trial. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)