Why do courts have juries?
Why do people, who don't really have any knowledge in law, decide a case in court? Shouldn't the court decide based on laws and not the intuition of a layperson?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Northwest · M
This answer is specific to the USA. Our Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to trial by a jury of their peers. That is called trial by Jury. The verdict is rendered by the Jury.
A defendant can ask for a bench triall. The latter is heard only by the judge and a verdict is rendered by the Judge alone.
Case law and Constitutional interpretation establishes that criminal trials must have 12 jurors. In federal court, juries must reach a unanimous verdict in all criminal proceedings.
Defendant Donald J. Trump decided to exercise his right to a Trial by Jury in his federal criminal case, hoping that he can sway at least a single juror, resulting in a hung jury. Lauren Boebert was also hoping for the same outcome, which is why she showed up.
A defendant can ask for a bench triall. The latter is heard only by the judge and a verdict is rendered by the Judge alone.
Case law and Constitutional interpretation establishes that criminal trials must have 12 jurors. In federal court, juries must reach a unanimous verdict in all criminal proceedings.
Defendant Donald J. Trump decided to exercise his right to a Trial by Jury in his federal criminal case, hoping that he can sway at least a single juror, resulting in a hung jury. Lauren Boebert was also hoping for the same outcome, which is why she showed up.
Northwest · M
@Luke73 I gave you the general answer. Our Constitution guarantees it.
This dates back to English common law in the Middle Ages. English courts would have juries composed of people inexperienced in legal affairs to make decisions.
British Parliament asserted that the Colonies had to obey the laws that they enacted, eventually American juries began to nullify the ordinances passed down from the Crown. By the time of the Revolution, many of the new states’ constitutions had specifically marked down the right for citizens to have juries in civil and criminal cases.
During the Constitutional Convention, there were two schools of thought. The Federalists were concerned the laws of contract would be neglected. The Anti-Federalists demanded the addition of civil juries, on the grounds that they would be an effective defense against overreach and corruption from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government.
They finally agreed the right to civil juries was needed, and added to the Constitution in the Seventh Amendment.
This dates back to English common law in the Middle Ages. English courts would have juries composed of people inexperienced in legal affairs to make decisions.
British Parliament asserted that the Colonies had to obey the laws that they enacted, eventually American juries began to nullify the ordinances passed down from the Crown. By the time of the Revolution, many of the new states’ constitutions had specifically marked down the right for citizens to have juries in civil and criminal cases.
During the Constitutional Convention, there were two schools of thought. The Federalists were concerned the laws of contract would be neglected. The Anti-Federalists demanded the addition of civil juries, on the grounds that they would be an effective defense against overreach and corruption from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government.
They finally agreed the right to civil juries was needed, and added to the Constitution in the Seventh Amendment.
JoyfulSilence · 46-50, M
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Northwest I was commenting about the apparent origin of trial by jury, maybe I was too obtuse for you.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Northwest there is always the way put possibility that his attorneys can force the appeal process thought the entire NY State system and then into the federal courts. The far left, wink wink, MSNBC discussion demonstrates how this might happen
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-trump-s-supreme-court-friends-bail-him-out-not-any-time-soon/vi-BB1nqv9L?ocid=socialshare
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-trump-s-supreme-court-friends-bail-him-out-not-any-time-soon/vi-BB1nqv9L?ocid=socialshare
JoyfulSilence · 46-50, M
@Northwest
I was talking about the custom of trial by jury, in general, across time. I later looked it up in Wikipedia and it goes back to the Greeks, in some form. But a lot of societies that had it have abolished it in favor of professional judges.
I was talking about the custom of trial by jury, in general, across time. I later looked it up in Wikipedia and it goes back to the Greeks, in some form. But a lot of societies that had it have abolished it in favor of professional judges.
Northwest · M
@samueltyler2
To which you commented that the genesis was the Magna Carta. Perhaps you're not aware that the Magna Carta is a stepping stone alonf the English common law that evolved through the Middle Agea.
I was commenting about the apparent origin of trial by jury, maybe I was too obtuse for you.
This dates back to English common law in the Middle Ages.
To which you commented that the genesis was the Magna Carta. Perhaps you're not aware that the Magna Carta is a stepping stone alonf the English common law that evolved through the Middle Agea.
JoyfulSilence · 46-50, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Northwest i don't understand your point. of course everything evolves, the Magna Carta put into writing what had been evolving.
Northwest · M
@samueltyler2 Jesus Christ. Read the original comment.