Jury

A jury is a panel of citizens authorized to render a verdict and a finding of fact in a court proceeding. The United States Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury for most criminal and many civil matters. This right is not guaranteed for petty criminal offenses, generally defined as crimes punishable by sentences of less than six months.

The word "jury" originates from the Old French word juree, which itself derives from the Latin word juris, meaning law.

Selection of jurors

Members of a jury, known as jurors, are a panel of peers from the surrounding community, called upon to decide a legal matter. Each different state county will generally form a jury commission to oversee those selected for jury duty and to ensure that jurors represent a cross section of the population.

Jury duty is not a requirement for all people. Some may be excused from serving, if jury duty would impose undue hardship on them or their family. Certain occupational groups are also excused from jury duty, such as armed forces members on active duty, members of fire and police departments, and government officers.

Jury size

In federal court, a jury consists of 12 members, although smaller juries are constitutionally acceptable. Juries in criminal cases are constitutionally required to have no fewer than six members. Grand juries are so named because they are generally larger than petit juries, having anywhere from 12 to 23 members.

Jury's role in court proceedings

The division of the role between the judge and jury in a trial can be characterized by a simple distinction: the jury determines the truth of disputed facts while the judge decides the rules of law. The legal questions in play in a particular case are determined by the judge presiding at the trial, who explains to the members of the jury how to apply the facts to the law in "jury instructions." Jury instructions may also include directions to disregard inadmissible testimony and guidelines on the way to behave outside of the court.

For a plaintiff to win a civil lawsuit with a jury, three-quarters of the jurors must find the case in the plaintiff's favor. Guilt or innocence in a criminal trial requires a unanimous decision of the jury. The only exceptions are the cases of Oregon and Louisiana, which both allow convictions on 10-2 or 11-1 margins, requiring unanimous verdicts only in capital cases.

Absent fraud, a jury's verdict is final. Jury deliberations will not be scrutinized, or their verdict overturned, even when the jury is suspected to have purposefully rejected the judge's instructions or the evidence presented.

Hung jury

Sometimes, jurors may be unable to reach a consensus. If this occurs, the judge will instruct jurors to continue deliberation, and if a consensus still cannot be reached the jury will be considered a hung jury and there must be a new trial with a new jury.

Jury nullification

Jury nullification is defined as a jury's intentional refusal to apply the law because the jurors do not agree with the verdict that would be in accordance with the existing laws. This may be because they wish to send a message about a social issue or because of moral issues that the jurors have with the case's outcome. An example might be a juror who votes "not guilty" in a criminal case where the defendant has been accused of marijuana use, not because the facts exonerate the defendant, but rather because the juror supports legalization of marijuana.

Jury nullification is not a legal right of the jury and is inconsistent with the jury's responsibility to make a decision based only on existing law and the facts of the case. Despite this, jury verdicts of acquittal cannot be contested, and so even a decision involving jury nullification will remain unassailable.

Jury reform

In the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has shaped and extended the constitutional right to a trial by jury, and has made decisions affecting juror selection.

• Right to a jury: One significant decision was its 1968 ruling in Duncan v. Louisiana, which required states to provide jury trials in all serious criminal cases. Prior to Duncan, states had their own rules. Louisiana, for instance, required juries only in cases where the potential punishment was death or hard labor.
• No right to refuse a jury: In the Court's 1965 ruling in Singer v. United States, it ruled that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not imply a related right to refuse one. The Court decision argued that juries are important not only to the defendant, but also to the government and the public.
• Changes to juror selection: Historically, parties in a case have had the right to remove prospective jurors without giving a reason for the removal, referred to as a peremptory challenge. In its 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, the Court limited this right, disallowing removal of jurors based on race, gender or religious affiliation.

In the Minnesota Supreme Court

Many cities have encountered difficulty ensuring racial and economic diversity in their jurors, leading some critics of the system to argue that people of color are overrepresented in the numbers of those arrested and imprisoned, while being underrepresented in those serving on the juries in criminal courts.

In 1993, the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Bias in the Judicial System was commissioned to study this issue in the state of Minnesota. Their findings were issued in a report that called for changes to jury selection methods so as to increase the diversity of jurors. In response, Minnesota's Supreme Court made changes to their rules on jury management. Hennepin and Ramsey Counties were authorized to adopt new procedures for jury selection. These two counties were selected as the most populous and racially diverse counties in the state, and their new procedures were designed to increase minority representation as a percentage on juries in the two counties.

See also

• Court
• Trial court
• Criminal law
• Civil law
• Judge
• Due Process Clause
• Index of terms