A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Juries developed in England during the Middle Ages and are a hallmark of the Anglo common law legal system. They are still commonly used today in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada , Australia, and other countries whose legal systems are descended from English and later British legal traditions.
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) describes a not guilty verdict of a criminal trial's jury despite a defendant having clearly broken the law. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust, the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute and unqualified right to reach any verdict it chooses, although they are usually not told of this right in the process of a trial.
Voir dire is a legal phrase for a variety of procedures connected with jury trials. It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth. This term is also used informally to describe the practice of jury selection in certain jurisdictions.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006. He is the second Italian-American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, after Antonin Scalia, and the eleventh Roman Catholic.
Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.
Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.
Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development, 226 F.3d 223 was a U.S. legal case about whether states may be subjected to money damages for failing to comply with the family care provision in the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). A decision by the lower circuit court of appeals in favor of the state was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Thomas Lee Ambro is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He began his judicial service in 2000.
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.
Jury nullification in the United States has its origins in colonial America under British law. In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
A stealth juror or rogue juror is a person who, motivated by a hidden agenda in reference to a legal case, attempts to be seated on the jury and to influence the outcome. Legal scholars believe that lawyers can identify stealth jurors by paying close attention to non-verbal behavior connected with deception and identifying discrepancies between answers to oral voir dire and written questionnaires. A potential stealth juror may be hard to read and excessively reserved. The potential for stealth jurors to nullify death penalty statutes has prompted calls to eliminate the requirement of a unanimous verdict in jury trials. On the other hand, the argument has been raised that stealth jurors can serve as a defense against bad laws.
Jury selection in the United States is the choosing of members of grand juries and petit juries for the purpose of conducting trial by jury in the United States.
Amy Singer is a Florida trial consultant and research psychologist. Singer’s firm, Trial Consultants, Inc., which she founded in Miami in 1979, is one of the first trial consulting firms in the United States. Singer is an acknowledged authority in the field of litigation psychology, a discipline she helped pioneer. Her revolutionary approach, which consists of applying principles of psychology and using open-ended questions to elicit jurors’ value beliefs regarding key trial issues, changed the way that attorneys around the United States conduct voir dire. Largely through Singer’s influence, this became a juror de-selection, not selection, process.
Wainwright vs. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the voir dire process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.
Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.
Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (2014), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that jurors may not testify about what occurred during jury deliberations, even to expose dishonesty during jury selection or voir dire. The Court delivered its ruling on December 9, 2014.
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that, where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.
