The federal constitution of the United States has more provisions on the establishment of the jury:
Article 3 of the federal constitution of the United States stipulates that all criminal cases must be tried by jury except impeachment cases;
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that in criminal proceedings, the defendant has the right to be tried quickly and openly by an impartial jury;
The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that in ordinary civil proceedings, if the value of a dispute exceeds $20, the right to be tried by a jury shall be protected.
The American Constitution and its amendments establish the jury system in criminal and civil proceedings. Generally speaking, if the sentence charged in a criminal case exceeds 6 months, the defendant has the right to request a jury trial; The parties to a civil case have no natural right to a jury trial, but they can apply and be established after the approval of the judge.
Therefore, according to Article 7 of the Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the articles in Little Dad also have the right to ask the court to organize a jury trial.
So what's the difference between a juror and a judge? What is their division of labor? In the case of "jury trial", the jury and the judge have a clear division of responsibilities. The former is responsible for finding out the facts of the case; The latter is responsible for the application of the law. For example, in criminal cases, the main duty of the jury is to decide whether the defendant has committed the crime accused by the prosecution according to the existing evidence (in some jurisdictions, the jury will also decide whether the death penalty should be applied). If the jury finds the defendant guilty, the judge will sentence him according to law. If the jury finds the defendant innocent, the judge will announce his release. In addition, according to the principle of "double jeopardy", the defendant shall not be tried again for the same crime. In other words, the jury's acquittal is final.
Because the role of jury is so important, judges and lawyers of both sides attach great importance to the selection of jurors. American law has also formulated a set of specific rules for selecting jurors. The basic procedure for selecting jurors is: first, the judge randomly selects a certain number of people from the registration list of local voters and writes to ask if they can serve as jurors in this case. The number of primary candidates mainly depends on the social influence of the case, ranging from dozens to hundreds.
In the United States, being a juror is the duty of every citizen, so it is called jury duty. As long as you file a tax return, the court will inform you to become a juror according to the address on the tax form. And the notice also said that if you don't report at the appointed time, you may be arrested. The so-called obligation is no reward, just a subsidy of tens of dollars a day. Large companies often let their employees get paid, which shows that the company is doing its duty for the country, while small companies or their own enterprises are really doing their duty for the country. Although most Americans believe that serving as a juror is a citizen's obligation, in reality, many people evade this obligation. They are either afraid of being implicated or afraid of wasting time. Faced with this situation, some judges have to take punitive measures. For example, some judges fined those who were thought to have deliberately evaded jury duty for contempt of court, some judges ordered them to "sit in court" for one day the next day, and some judges ordered them to "detain" in court for one day. But if it is really difficult to participate in the jury, you can ask the judge to be flexible. However, when it comes to a major case of the century like Simpson, many people will scramble to become jurors. Because some people can sell their stories to the media or write their own books after closing the case. But usually in protracted cases, the court will give priority to retirees as jurors.
Even so, not everyone can serve as a juror. American citizens who wish to serve as jurors are required to have the following characteristics: no personal interest in the outcome of legal decisions, no partiality in the defense process, no criminal record, and good knowledge of English.
After preliminary screening, they will not become jurors immediately, and these people must go to court to accept the "court election" at the designated time. This is the most critical time in the process of selecting jurors, and both lawyers should participate. Some people call this an "outpost war" of a formal trial, which often has the significance of deciding the outcome in advance.
Lawyers of both sides have veto power over the candidates of the jury. There are two forms: one is called "rational veto" or "rational avoidance"; One is called "unreasonable veto" or "forced withdrawal". The law has specific provisions on the frequency of the latter. For example, in cases that can be sentenced to death, lawyers of both sides have the right to "unreasonably veto" 20 times each; In the cases that can be sentenced to imprisonment, there are 10 times; Other minor criminal cases, three times each. Because there is no need to state the reasons for "unreasonable veto" to the court, both lawyers attach great importance to these opportunities. In the process of asking candidates, they try their best to know the social status, personal experience, ethnic origin and so on of the candidates, and try their best to exclude those candidates who may be inclined to the other side in the trial from the jury.
After the jury members are determined, the judge will make all jurors swear that they will try the case fairly, and then the trial procedure will begin. During the trial, the names and identities of jurors are confidential unless they are willing to disclose them to the outside world. Jurors in ordinary cases can go home, but if the case causes a sensation, they must be isolated, not allowed to read newspapers and TV news, and even go to the grocery store to buy food with the bailiff to ensure that they are not in contact with the outside world and maintain a fair judgment. It can be said that during this period, the freedom of jurors is even smaller than that of suspects in this case. They live together in an isolated place and are transported to the court by the bailiff's car every day. Generally, you can't see your relatives and friends, and you can't watch TV news and newspapers that have not been reviewed by the bailiff, so as not to influence the cases related to justice by public opinion.
After the trial, the judge usually tells them that whether you are a social celebrity or a housewife, you have the same rights. You don't need any professional legal training, and you can't master the legal provisions. You just need to judge the evidence by the feelings in your life.
As you may know, in civil courts, when judging right and wrong, the minority is subordinate to the majority; In a criminal court, the verdict of guilt or innocence must be unanimous by all jurors. If there is one vote against it, the verdict of guilt or innocence cannot be established. Each jury consists of 12 full members and 3 alternate members. If someone is lucky enough to be elected, you may not discuss the case with anyone during the whole trial. In addition, those present who are not selected will also be deemed to have performed jury duties, and may not be re-employed by the court within 12 months.
In order to ensure as many ordinary people as possible to participate in the jury, and at the same time prevent a few jurors from serving as jurors for a long time, becoming essentially "supernumerary judges" and losing the unique perspective and values of jurors as laymen, there are strict restrictions on the tenure of jurors abroad. In the common law system, a jury is temporarily formed before each case is heard and dissolved immediately after the case is heard. The term of office of jurors is limited to the case they are trying.
In order to prevent jurors from bending the law and dereliction of duty, these countries have made strict and specific provisions on the responsibility of jurors who violate the law.
Linda commented on the jury system in the United States:
The jury system in the United States is also controversial. This seems to be the weakest link in the American judicial system. Jurors are randomly selected, and people come from all walks of life, with different races and colors, regardless of occupation, knowledge and culture. In America, the most powerful is the legal team. Why do you want to find a group of "laymen" to be "judges above judges"? In the United States, all people who understand and agree with this system never think it is a perfect system, but they can't find a better system. It's like what Americans sometimes joke about: If we don't compare the jury system with other countries' systems, it's really terrible. Jefferson, the third president of the United States, believes that the jury system plays a more important role than the right to vote in maintaining democracy.
Of course, the jury system has obvious weaknesses. All "rule by law" will be confused by "rule by man", and "people" will participate in the initial legislation, trial and final judgment. The design of jury system thinks that if everything is clear and obvious, the intelligence of ordinary people is enough to make judgments. Americans insist on using the jury system because jurors are the least manipulated and controlled by anyone.
Jurors are independent of the government, the judicial system and any political forces. Their judgment is the judgment that ordinary people will make under the provisions of the law on juries. They can be on call, and the court keeps them secret, so that they have no psychological burden. As long as they don't want to show their faces, they will never be known by the people around them. Of course, there is a basic condition that this society is free and ordinary people are not subject to any control.
About the jury system, I have to mention three movies, which will make us have more perceptual knowledge about the jury system.
One is "12 Angry Han" directed by Sydney Lumante, and henry fonda plays juror No.8.
Second, The Out-of-Control Jury, which shows some defects of the jury system, is a reflective work.
The third part is nikita mikhalkov's Russian version of 12 Angry People, which pays tribute to Lutermann's 12 Angry People.
We might as well look around when we have time.