Juror's oath

Last updated

A juror's oath is used to swear in jurors at the beginning of jury selection or trial.

Contents

Australia

In a New South Wales juror's oath, the juror promises to "...well and truly try and true deliverance make between our Sovereign Lady the Queen [or the King] and the accused whom you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give according to the evidence." [1]

In Western Australia each juror has a choice to either "swear by Almighty God" or "solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm" to "give a true verdict according to the evidence upon the issue(s) to be tried by me."

In Queensland each juror has a choice for an Oath or Affirmation. The Oath is as follows:

You will conscientiously try the charges and decide them according to evidence. You will not disclose anything about the Jury's deliberations other than as allowed or required by law. So help you God.

The Affirmation is as follows:

Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that you will conscientiously try the charges against the Defendant, and you will decide them according to the evidence. You will also not disclose anything about the Jury's deliberation other than as required by law. [2]

Canada

In Canada, each juror has the choice to take either an oath or affirmation. The oath/affirmation states something to the effect of:

Do you swear to well and truly try and true deliverance make between our sovereign lady the Queen, and the accused at the bar, who you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give, according to the evidence, so help you God? [3] [4]

In the case of an affirmation, "swear" is replaced with "affirm", and "so help you God" is omitted. [5]

France

In French criminal procedure the role of judge and jury is different than in common law countries. A jury has a part only in the most serious cases, and the judges and jury together decide verdict and sentence. According to the French Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge says:

Do you swear and promise to examine with the most scrupulous attention the charges that will be laid against [the defendant]; to betray neither the interests of the defendant, nor the interests of the society that accuses him, nor the interests of the victim; not to communicate with anybody until you [declare your verdict]; not to listen to hatred, malice, fear or affection; to remember that the defendant is presumed to be innocent and that doubt must benefit him; to decide for yourself according to the charges and the means of defense, according to your conscience and intimate conviction, with the impartiality and firmness that befits an honest and free person, and to keep the secret of the deliberations, even after you cease to be a juror.

Each juror must respond "I so swear". [6]

New Zealand

A New Zealand juror's oath reads: "Members of the jury: Do each of you swear by Almighty God (or solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm) that you will try the case before you to the best of your ability and give your verdict according to the evidence?" [7]

United Kingdom

In England and Wales, and Northern Ireland the Oaths Act 1978 applies to jurors' oaths (Part II of the act also applies to Scotland). The person may opt either to swear an oath on the New Testament—or, for Jews, the Old Testament—or to affirm. Oaths can be "administered in any lawful manner" to persons who are neither Christian nor Jews. [8] For example, other faiths may be sworn in on a holy book of their choice, such as the Verdas for Hindus and the Koran for Muslims. [9] [10]

The affirmation was first made available to Quakers and Moravians, who had conscientious objections to oaths, extended by the Quakers and Moravians Act 1838, and later further extended to anybody who chooses to do so. [11]

The oath starts "I swear by almighty God/by Allah/by Waheguru/on the Gita"; for an affirmation the wording is "I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm". This is followed in both cases by "that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence." [12] [13]

United States

In the United States, a federal juror's oath usually states something to the effect of, "Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?"

Jury instructions sometimes make reference to the juror's oath. For example, the Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for use by U.S. District Courts state: [14]

You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be. That is entirely up to you.

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took.

The wording of the oath in federal court is not prescribed by statute. James Duane describes it as "simply an old tradition judges have made up." [15]

Related Research Articles

Jury instructions, also known as charges or directions, are a set of legal guidelines given by a judge to a jury in a court of law. They are an important procedural step in a trial by jury, and as such are a cornerstone of criminal process in many common law countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oath of office</span> Official promise by a person elected to public office to lawfully fulfill its duties

An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before assuming the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or organization. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that 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 right to return any verdict it chooses.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. A hung jury may result in the case being tried again.

An oath of citizenship is an oath taken by immigrants that officially naturalizes immigrants into citizens. It is often the final step in this process, and is usually done in a ceremonial capacity. An oath of citizenship is designed to be a statement of patriotism and loyalty to the new country. In countries which retain a monarchical system of government, an oath of allegiance to the monarch is often required as well. Adding an oath to God to the end of an oath is usually optional.

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case that, amongst other things, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. The Court affirmed Alexander Allen's murder conviction, having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)</span> Promise to be loyal to the British monarch

The Oath of Allegiance is a promise to be loyal to the British monarch, and his or her heirs and successors, sworn by certain public servants in the United Kingdom, and also by newly naturalised subjects in citizenship ceremonies. The current standard wording of the oath of allegiance is set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.

Sworn testimony is evidence given by a witness who has made a commitment to tell the truth. If the witness is later found to have lied whilst bound by the commitment, they can often be charged with the crime of perjury. The types of commitment can include oaths, affirmations and promises which are explained in more detail below. The exact wording of the commitments vary from country to country.

A statutory declaration is a legal document defined under the law of certain Commonwealth nations and in the United States. It is similar to a statement made under oath, but it is not sworn.

In Australia, an Oath of Allegiance or an Affirmation of Allegiance are oaths of allegiance required to be made to the monarch of Australia in some situations. Oaths of Allegiance are usually made on a Bible, or some other book holy to the person, such as a Torah or Koran; but the person may opt to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath. This oath is not the same as the Australian Citizenship Pledge which is required to be made when being naturalised as an Australian citizen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath. Some religious adherents hold beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises but forbid them to swear an oath before a deity. Additionally, an individual may decline making a religious oath due to their personal beliefs, or those of their audience. In some jurisdictions, an affirmation may be given only if such a reason is provided.

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. It has its origins in colonial America under British 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.

"So help me God" is a phrase often used to give an oath, sometimes optionally as part of an oath of office. It is used in some jurisdictions as an oath for performing a public duty, such as an appearance in court. The phrase implies greater care than usual in the truthfulness of one's testimony or in the performance of one's duty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial by jury in Scotland</span>

Trial by jury in Scotland is used in the courts of Scotland in solemn procedure for trial on indictment before a judge and jury for serious criminal cases, and in certain civil cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oaths Act 1978</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Oaths Act 1978 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Member of Parliament (Canada)</span> Federal representative elected by Canadian voters

A member of Parliament is a term typically used to describe an elected politician in the House of Commons of Canada, the lower chamber of the bicameral Parliament of Canada.

References

  1. ↑ Discussion Paper 12 (1985) - Criminal Procedure: The Jury in a Criminal Trial, LawLink
  2. ↑ What happens from jury selection to hearing the evidence - Queensland Courts, 29 June 2015, archived from the original on 2021-12-15
  3. ↑ Dubinski, Kate (2013-03-08). "Gale mistrial will likely remain a jury mystery". The London Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
  4. ↑ Bowal, Peter (2000). ""I swear to...a true verdict give"" (PDF). Law Now. 24 (5): 27. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-04-05 – via PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository.
  5. ↑ "Mock Jury Selection" (PDF). Ontario Justice Education Network. 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-04-06. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
  6. ↑ République française; Secrétariat général du gouvernement (19 October 2022). "Légifrance Le service public de la diffusion du droit" [The public service for dissemination of the law]. Légifrance. Direction de l'information légale et administrative. CPP art. 304. ISSN   2270-8987. OCLC   867599055.
  7. ↑ "Jury Amendment Rules 2000 (SR 2000/100)". New Zealand Legislation. 15 June 2000.
  8. ↑ "Oaths Act 1978 Part I". legislation.gov.uk. The person taking the oath shall hold the New Testament, or, in the case of a Jew, the Old Testament ... In the case of a person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, the oath shall be administered in any lawful manner. Web page shows both current amended wording and original as enacted.
  9. ↑ Keenan, Denis J.; Smith, Kenneth (2007). Smith & Keenan's English Law: Text and Cases. Pearson Longman. ISBN   978-1-4058-4618-9.
  10. ↑ "Oaths, affirmations and declarations; and Appendix 2 ‐ Practices of different faith traditions". Equal Treatment Bench Book - Discrimination on the basis of belief or non‐belief (PDF) (Report). November 2013. pp. 7, 62–65.
  11. ↑ "Oaths Act 1978 Part II: Solemn affirmations". legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 23 April 2021.
  12. ↑ "Crown Court trial Part 2 - The Jury". Defence-Barrister.co.uk. n.d. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  13. ↑ Gillespie, Alisdair (2013-04-18). The English Legal System. OUP Oxford. ISBN   978-0-19-965709-4.
  14. ↑ Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. "Duty to Follow Instructions" (PDF). Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions - 2021 edition. p. 9.
  15. ↑ Duane, James (1996). "Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right" (PDF). Litigation. 22 (4): 6–60.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.