87
Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer ...
62
Overview
The rule on whether jurors may discuss a case before closing arguments is almost always a matter of statewide law and not a decision left to a particular judge in a particular case.
There is good reason to believe that prohibiting pre-closing deliberation by jurors tends to make ultimate jury verdicts more accurate for reasons discussed below.
The ...
58
If this judge is truly biased, won't the litigants be all the more glad to have a jury of their peers? You are proposing to abandon your duty to others. At trial you serve the community, not the judge.
Back on scope for Law SE: If you refuse to serve on a jury, that could be a separate offense or general criminal contempt, for which you (this all depends on ...
38
The trial at issue is a civil trial over the publication of his book Permanent Record and the non-disclosure agreement that he signed connected to his employment, see the DoJ announcement, which also notes that this is separate from a future espionage trial. The remedy sought involves no imprisonment. In the US, the constitutional right to a jury trial ...
34
If you honestly feel that your personal relationship with any of he court officers will affect your ability to be impartial and unbiased in the case then you have a duty to inform the court of this. The reasons are largely irrelevant, however, you might be asked to explain them - do so in a neutral manner and make it about you because it is. It is your ...
33
Yes, it is possible. The requirements are (1) you are a citizen (the burden is on the prospective juror to pay attention to that requirement) and (2) the court knows that you exist and calls you up for jury duty. Apart from voter registrations, drivers license data is also used (and can be dangerous, because non-citizens can have licenses and may not know ...
29
Short answer, yes, jurors will typically render a decision of guilt vs. innocence. This is pretty common in nations where the legal system is derived from British Common Law (about 2 billion people world wide live in a Common Law nation). The U.S. is unique in that it uses juries for Civil Trials as well as Criminal Trials. The right to a trial by jury ...
25
No. Several elements of the crimes defined at 18 USC 1503 and 1504 would be absent, not least of which is that the Senate isn't actually a jury but a legislative body that is only partly analogous to a jury.
23
Some of the documents are here. As document 61 of the trial, the government motion for bench trial, argues,
There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for criminal contempt
charges resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of six months or less.
Arpaio responds in document 62 that
Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional ...
22
For the New York State Unified Court System, you can consult their Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.nyjuror.gov/juryQandA.shtml#Q6.
What if my summons or questionnaire is lost?
Contact your local Commissioner of Jurors. Find contact information by scrolling down at “Select County” in the box on the left menu.
When you select your county and ...
22
No. Jurors generally do not receive such an instruction and it is not a rule of law or evidence. Jurors have to rule in accordance with the law, but how they judge the credibility of witnesses may be influenced by emotional factors. How the witness says something is as much a part of the evidence as what they say.
20
First, while Law and Order should not be taken as an accurate depiction of a New York trial, it especially should not be taken as an accurate depiction of an Australian trial. Australian law, while it has some major similarities with US law (both ultimately derive from the law of England), is not US law. With procedural matters (such as "may jurors ask ...
17
I finally found the actual transcript of the voir dire part of the case mentioned in the question.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2012090614295190
As can be evidenced from the transcript, the judge has specifically instructed the two jurors working as engineers at the local tech companies that they'd have to "forget" what they know ...
17
No.
The government may not establish laws to keep members of a particular race out of the jury pool. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, (1879) (“The statute of West Virginia, which, in effect, singles out and denies to colored citizens the right and privilege of participating in the administration of the law, as jurors, because of their color, though ...
16
Can the judge flat out tell the jury that they cannot vote to nullify the verdict?
He can but this kind of "jury nullification" makes little sense and is obvious that is not possible. A verdict is rendered by the jury. Once the verdict is rendered, there is no further vote. It would also make little sense for a jury to render a guilty verdict and ...
14
You can't guarantee a juror's disregard, and some attorneys might utilize the "once it's said, it can't be unsaid" strategy because they know that the jury will still keep it in the back of their mind even though they've been told to ignore it. But there are checks and balances to prevent a remark having an impact on the final decision:
Jury deliberation. ...
14
To begin with, jury nullification is not a separate act. It’s not like the jury verdict can be one of “Guilty”, “Not guilty” or “Nullified”.
Instead, a juror says something like “The guy’s pretty sus for sure, but I’m voting not guilty because [insert reason that’s contrary to applicable law]”. Others agree and find the defendant not guilty. To anyone who ...
13
A judge only trial (aka a bench trial) is possible in the United States, though it must be requested by the defense (essentially the defense waives its right to trial by jury, in which case the judge acts as both trier of law (his or her usual role) and trier of fact (the jury's usual role).
A court case may be partially sealed so as to discuss evidence of ...
12
It depends on what the jury said, and if it's criminal or civil.
In criminal cases, the judge may almost never set aside a verdict of acquittal. There is a single case in the US in which this happened, and it was a bench trial (no jury). That case featured the defendant bribing his trial judge; the Seventh Circuit held that he was never in jeopardy due to ...
12
Yes, such a scenario is plausible, and there are some cases where it has probably happened. But since juries do not normally give reasons for their votes, it is hard to establish when it has and when it has not happened, and I have seen no statistics on such occurrences.
By the way, "Jury Nullification" is simply when one or more jury members vote ...
11
According to Baldwin v. New York (1970), "the federal right to jury trial attaches where an offense is punishable by as much as six months' imprisonment" (1). That, is a crime is considered petty unless the maximum punishment exceeds six months' imprisonment.
Moreover, Arpaio is being charged with criminal contempt. According to 42 U.S. Code § 1995, "the ...
9
We have all see on TV the judge instruct jurors that during trial they are not to speak about the case with anyone, even other jurors, unless all jurors are present and they are deliberating. However, contrary to the example given about England, in the U.S., those restrictions evaporate at the end of the trial. After a trial concludes, the court has no ...
8
Short Answer
Statements of jurors about their deliberations are not allowed to be considered for any purpose, subject to very narrow limitations which do not apply in the fact pattern you are asking about in this question.
The General Rule And Its Exceptions
Consideration of juror statements, subject to narrow exceptions, is barred by Federal Rule of ...
8
It is hard to measure accuracy in absolute terms because figuring out the truth is the problem that trials seek to solve in the first place.
This is especially true of cases that go to trial. Cases that are almost sure to be resolved one way or the other by any tier of fact generally plea bargain (in criminal cases) or settle prior to trial (in civil cases). ...
8
Is it true that in US law jurors are not actually judging guilt, but rather whether the case against a person has been made in accordance with the concepts of all reasonable doubt?
It is not true, legally speaking, because as far as the law is concerned it is the jury's verdict that decides the question of guilt, and the jury's verdict is determined by ...
8
No.
The military has a saying “never give an order you know won’t be obeyed”. While the judge can tell the jury to disregard some statement or other, what that really means is that judge is saying that it is not relevant to the case for legal reasons.
But jury discussions are private, and what and why jurors make their decision are outside of the control ...
7
The potential problem is if there is a form which you had to sign which says "I am a US citizen", and you signed the form (who reads the fine print, anyhow?). Unfortunately, that statement is false, and there are consequences for making a false statement. However, that law penalizes false statements with the intent to deceive, not mistaken statements. ...
7
The most innocent of your scenarios is "against the rules", so less innocent acts fair worse. The idea behind researching legal theory and precedent (presumably not presidents) is that surely it is good for a juror to know what the law is. But that thinking is wrong. The judge will instruct you as to what the law is, and will also instruct you that "the law" ...
7
"Precedent" refers to a finding of what the law is. A jury only finds facts, and operates (supposedly) within the meaning of the law as already established. All the jury reports is "yes" and "no" to questions of fact (with some reference to existing law): they do not report, at least in any official way "we interpret the law as saying X". So it would be ...
7
The origin of the jury is a complex mix of Saxon, Danish and Norman custom which morphed and melded along with English Common Law, which is the basis of the law in all ex-British colonies including the USA.
Danish towns in the north and east of England had hereditary “law men”, often 12 in number who decided legal disputes. In parallel the West Saxons (...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible