The above is the author’s understanding and simple statement. The following is a detailed analysis from Mr. Zhang Weiping, a professor and doctoral supervisor at Tsinghua University Law School:
In the United States, criminal cases and some civil cases Trials (mainly in tort cases) may use juries. But in the UK and Commonwealth countries, juries are largely no longer used in civil cases. As we all know, the basic duty of a jury is to determine the facts of the case. In a lawsuit involving a jury, the judge does not determine the facts. The judge's basic responsibility is to control the proceedings and apply the law based on the facts determined by the jury.
For cases requiring a jury trial, the first step is to select and assemble a jury. Jury selection is often complex, and jury selection is a highly technical task. Jury selection is conducted under the chairmanship of the presiding judge. A judge's clerk randomly draws a list of candidates from the local voter registration book. The judge determines the preliminary number of juror candidates, sometimes as many as two or three hundred, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Jury selection is conducted in public. The judge and attorneys for both parties should be present in the courtroom during the selection. The judge first briefs the candidates on the case and then begins selecting the candidates. With the judge's permission, others may observe the proceedings in the courtroom. Juror candidates draw lots to determine their seat numbers in the courtroom. The numbering of the juror candidates is very important because jurors are selected in numerical order. Once the number is determined and the candidate is seated according to the number, he or she fills out a questionnaire with the help of a judge's clerk under the direction of the judge's clerk. Questionnaire questions vary from case to case. In environmental litigation cases, the questionnaire may include questions such as "What are your views on environmental protection and industrial development?" and "Have you been harmed by environmental pollution?"; in tobacco litigation cases, the questionnaire may include "Do you smoke?" Questions such as "Do any of your friends suffer from smoking-related diseases?" In AIDS litigation, questionnaires may include questions such as "What are your views on homosexuality?" In AIDS proceedings, questionnaires may include questions such as "What are your views on homosexuality?" The questionnaire will also cover the candidate's relationship with the lawyers in the case, such as whether they know any of them, whether they have ever retained any of them, etc. The candidate's relationship with the witness is also an issue. The candidate's relationship with the witness is also an important issue to investigate. The questionnaire will list the witnesses who will appear in subsequent proceedings. The judge and attorneys for both parties will screen candidates based on these surveys. The judge may also directly question the candidate, for example, asking the candidate if there are any factors that would affect his or her decision making.
The judge will remove from the jury pool those who do not meet the legal requirements. For example, non-U.S. citizens, criminal records, no voting rights, etc. People on the shortlist may also request not to serve as jurors by stating to the judge reasons why they are not suitable to serve as jurors in the case, such as physical condition. These grounds must be supported by appropriate evidence and may be withdrawn with the consent of the judge. Because jury service is a civic duty, candidates may not withdraw without the judge's consent. According to surveys, most Americans are unwilling to serve on juries. The main reason is that serving on juries will delay time and affect work and life. Although there is a stipend for jury service, the amount is small, usually around $8 to $15.
After the judge eliminates unqualified candidates, the next step is for lawyers from both sides to screen the candidates. A party's attorney can reject or retain candidates he or she deems appropriate. In a typical case, a party's attorney may not exercise the veto more than four or five times, but in special circumstances it may be six, seven, or as many as ten times, with the judge deciding the number of vetoes. The composition of the jury often determines the success or failure of the case. In the famous case of Rodney King v. Los Angeles Police Department, the prosecution lost the first trial because the jury composition was favorable to the defendant. But the principle of selection is simple: eliminate candidates who are not beneficial to the client's side.
When a candidate emerges, attorneys on both sides must carefully analyze the candidate's case. Lawyers from both sides can ask questions to the candidates and judge whether to exercise their veto power based on the candidates' answers. What kind of questions a lawyer should design is a rather technical question. However, attorneys are not allowed to directly ask questions such as "How does the candidate view the case?" The judge is the gatekeeper to questions asked by lawyers and can veto them if they are inappropriate. If both parties' veto powers have been exhausted but the required number of 12 jurors has not yet been reached, the judge can only select a jury by headcount. After the jurors are confirmed, several alternate jurors are needed to prevent accidents. If a juror is unable to exercise his or her rights due to illness or other reasons, an alternate juror may be substituted. Jurors will wear special jury badges. Juror badges vary from state to state. Most are round in shape, but in different colors. Some states are yellow, and some are red and white.
Before the trial officially begins, the judge will inform the jurors in writing in detail "what to do" and "what not to do." They are told what they can and cannot do. For example: the case in which the juror is involved is not allowed to be discussed with anyone (including other jurors), the court is not allowed to leave the court without permission, the phone is not allowed to be used without consent, other people who have illegal contact with the juror must report it to the judge in a timely manner, and they are not allowed to read the relevant cases newspapers, etc. Jurors are also generally not allowed to meet and speak alone with the judge. If they are to meet with a judge, they must do so in the presence of attorneys for both parties. Judges sometimes ask jurors to pay attention to dozens of things. Each juror signs his or her name after reading to show that he or she understands the notes. The jury has a coordinator and organizer, who may also be called the "foreman" of the jury. The jury foreman is elected by all jurors.
In some major criminal and civil trials, judges have the discretion to isolate juries from the outside world to protect them from outside interference. Sequestered juries rarely happen. Isolated jurors usually stay in a designated hotel and are supervised by a dedicated person. They are not allowed to leave their residence without the permission of the judge. During the isolation period, jurors are not allowed to read newspapers, watch TV, etc. to prevent outside influence. In the famous Simpson trial, the jury was isolated from the outside world. Cases tried abroad are generally tried continuously, with no interruptions from court opening to judgment except for statutory rest periods.
During the trial, the judge will continue to issue various instructions to the jury. For example, it points out which evidence is illegal and has no evidentiary effect, and instructs the jury not to use the evidence when determining the facts. If the jury accepts the evidence, the jury's verdict will be invalid.
In order for the jury to make a fair decision, any bribery of jurors is illegal. Jurors must abide by the corresponding legal provisions. Serious cases will be subject to criminal sanctions.
American court trials implement a cross-examination system, that is, the judge and jury cannot directly question the witnesses in the case, but can only be questioned by the lawyers of both parties. A lawyer's questioning of his own witnesses is called a principal examination, and a lawyer's questioning of the other party's witnesses is called a cross-examination. The jury learns the facts of the case through questions asked by witnesses from both sides' lawyers, and the judge controls the cross-examination of both sides' lawyers. Jurors also cannot participate when the judge discusses procedural issues in the case with attorneys because juries cannot decide procedural issues.
After witnesses from both sides testify, the judge can ask the jury to discuss the case and make a verdict. Jurors initially form a verdict based on the plaintiff's request, which is then put to a vote by the jurors. Typical civil and criminal cases require nine or more votes to rule. A unanimous vote is required to establish a murder charge. When the vote comes, all 12 jurors must vote. Of course, there have been times in history where one juror was absent from proceedings and the votes of 11 jurors still stood. Generally, failure to reach nine or more votes on the validity of a plaintiff's claim requires the jury to reconsider until a majority verdict is reached. How a jury determines the facts and reaches a verdict is strictly confidential, and jurors can be legally sanctioned for revealing their deliberations even after a case is decided. In civil compensation cases, the jury can also only make a verdict within the amount requested by the plaintiff, and cannot exceed the amount requested by the plaintiff.
This is the same spirit as the principle of debate in the civil law system. Before the trial, the judge will notify both parties, lawyers and the jury that the verdict will be announced at the next trial. When the trial begins, the judge will ask the jury foreman whether he has reached a verdict. If a verdict is reached, the jury foreman will announce the verdict and the results of the vote. After the jury foreman reads the verdict, the judge will ask the jurors one by one whether they agree or disagree. If a juror raises an objection at this time, resulting in more than four dissenting votes, the verdict is invalid and the jury must reconsider.
The jury system is an integral part of the American rule of law and the American litigation system, and embodies the characteristics of the American litigation system. The universal participation of the jury system is the most attractive part of the American litigation system, which fully reflects the democratization of the American rule of law. The existence of the jury system has also become the basis and premise for the existence of other systems with American characteristics, such as the cross-examination system, the lawyer system, etc., and even affects the American legal education system and methods. The charm of the jury system has attracted many civil law countries. Coupled with the strength of American culture, some civil law countries have tried to transplant and introduce it, but in the end they have not succeeded. In our country, many people are in love with the jury system and are impressed by its brilliant luster. However, we should note that the jury system is a product of the special history of the United States and has a special social and legal cultural background. In particular, the jury system is a very costly system. In a country like ours, where just selecting jurors takes several days, it is difficult to enjoy the jury system. In the context of a unique legal consciousness, the will of the jury is the will of the people and the will of God. The fairness of the jury's fact finding is unquestionable, and the jury's verdict is also unquestionable. Based on our legal awareness background, it may be difficult for society to accept this. In fact, due to differences in jurors' knowledge levels, life backgrounds, cognitive styles, racial awareness, etc., different jurors will reach different verdicts. The jury system is more like a game of rules. Whether the jury system should be abolished or changed has been debated endlessly in the United States. We cannot be fooled by the shy appearance of the jury system. As Americans say, the jury system has at least as many problems as good. Although Russia's new constitution provides for the introduction of a jury system in criminal proceedings and will be implemented in the Russian Federation in 2003, many problems have been encountered during the trial process. In addition, the introduction of the jury system in Russia has its own special political and historical background.