1 / 25

Jury Trials & Selection

Jury Trials & Selection. Legal Function of a Jury (Vidmar & Schuller, p. 130). “Decide the facts from the trial evidence presented and to apply the law (provided by the judge) to those facts to render a verdict”. Legal Function of a Jury (Vidmar & Schuller, p. 130).

odeda
Download Presentation

Jury Trials & Selection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jury Trials & Selection

  2. Legal Function of a Jury(Vidmar & Schuller, p. 130) • “Decide the facts from the trial evidence presented and to apply the law (provided by the judge) to those facts to render a verdict”

  3. Legal Function of a Jury(Vidmar & Schuller, p. 130) • “Decide the facts from the trial evidence presented and to apply the law (provided by the judge) to those facts to render a verdict” • Combines the wisdom and perspective of 12 ordinary persons chosen from the community who must unanimously agree in order to reach a verdict.

  4. Jury Trials • The right to trial by jury • From England in the mid 1700s

  5. Jury Trials • The right to trial by jury • From England in the mid 1700s • Criminal Law • In the case of all offences for which the maximum penalty is 5 years or more

  6. Jury Trials • The right to trial by jury • From England in the mid 1700s • Criminal Law • In the case of all offences for which the maximum penalty is 5 years or more • Indictable • Hybrid • Summary

  7. Jury Trials • An array of eligible jurors

  8. Jury Trials • An array of eligible jurors • Randomness

  9. Jury Trials • An array of eligible jurors • Randomness • Representativeness

  10. Jury Trials • An array of eligible jurors • Randomness • Representativeness • Impartiality

  11. Jury Trials • Who is not eligible: • Non-citizens

  12. Jury Trials • Who is not eligible: • Non-citizens • Statutory exemptions

  13. Jury Trials • Who is not eligible: • Non-citizens • Statutory exemptions • Undue personal hardship

  14. Jury Trials • Who is not eligible: • Non-citizens • Statutory exemptions • Undue personal hardship • Personal interest or connection

  15. Procedure • 12 jurors are selected from the array

  16. Procedure • 12 jurors are selected from the array • Each juror’s name is recorded on a card, cards randomly drawn

  17. Procedure • 12 jurors are selected from the array • Each juror’s name is recorded on a card, cards randomly drawn • Challenges: • Peremptory challenge: does not have to give any reason

  18. Procedure • 12 jurors are selected from the array • Each juror’s name is recorded on a card, cards randomly drawn • Challenges: • Peremptory challenge:does not have to give any reason • Challenge for cause: publicity or generic prejudice (race, sexual preference)

  19. Jury Selection Techniques(Crawford, 1994) 1. Community Opinion Poll

  20. Jury Selection Techniques(Crawford, 1994) • Community Opinion Poll • Pre-Trial Simulation or Mock Jury

  21. Jury Selection Techniques(Crawford, 1994) • Community Opinion Poll • Pre-Trial Simulation or Mock Jury • In-Court: Expert Beside Lawyer

  22. Jury Selection Techniques(Crawford, 1994) • Community Opinion Poll • Pre-Trial Simulation or Mock Jury • In-Court: Expert Beside Lawyer “Shadow Jury”

  23. First time used: London, ON 1979

  24. First time used: London, ON 1979 • Really only useful in certain types of trials: “Where there’s massive pre-trial publicity, where there are emotional issues, where there are political issues, or where one has a reason to believe that the evidence is so close that the jury could go either way” (Vidmar, 1994, p. 492)

More Related