The Jury System

“We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world, and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding 12 men every day who don’t know anything and can't read.” (Mark Twain, US humorist and author 1835–1910) Discuss why Twains views are even more pertinent today given more far-reaching media coverage?

Key knowledge

The Jury System Origins The jury system dates back to medieval times in England. It was common practice for a person accused of a crime to be tried by a group of his peers and other disputes were often settled in a similar way. Today jurors are chosen at random from the electoral roll. The jurors' role is to listen to the evidence and return a verdict based on the facts of the case as presented in evidence.

Role of jury In general terms, the role of the jury is to be the decider of facts in the case before them

Role of the jury

In both criminal and civil cases juries: Select a foreperson at the beginning of the trial who will be spokesperson Assess facts of case Listen to, understand and analyse evidence Follow instructions given by judge on rules of evidence and procedure Put aside all prejudices and bias Jurors cannot make their own investigations into the case Make a decision or verdict based on standard of proof (civil or criminal)

Factors that affect the composition of the jury The Juries Act 2000 (Vic.) replaced the Juries Act 1967 (Vic.) and outlines the stages and procedures to be followed when selecting and empanelling a jury. The composition of juries is influenced by the jury selection and empanelment process, which involves random selection of jurors, but also provides mechanisms that endeavors to remove potentially biased jurors from trials. The new Act increased the eligibility of people for jury service by reducing the opportunities for people to use excuses to avoid jury service

Differences in empanelling criminal juries and civil juries Challenges Each party is entitled to 6 peremptory challenges – where no reason is given (5 each if there are two co-accused, 4 if more than2 accused) and unlimited for cause challenges where either party challenges against a potential juror for a valid reason Challenge must be made before juror is in the jury box after their name and occupation is called Parties are able to challenge (for cause) unlimited times but must provide reason till there are sufficient number of jurors selected (usually double number required). The names/ numbers and occupations listed are given to parties, plaintiff and defendant each strike out three jurors off list (peremptorily) leave those names remaining on list as jury Number of jurors Generally 12 jurors, although case can continue with 10 if the judge allows. If it is likely to be lengthy, 15 can be empanelled, only 12 can deliberate and return the verdict. These are decided by ballot with one being foreperson. Generally 6 jurors on civil trial, although case can continue with 5 at judge’s discretion. Lengthy trials up to 8 empanelled but only 6 can return decision. These 6 decided by ballot, with one being foreperson.

Key features that affect composition of juries: The random nature of names for potential jurors being selected from electoral role means only those enrolled to vote may be considered – no one under 18 or those who are not Australian citizens Those who are disqualified are those who have done something in their past eg- have prior convictions, undischarged bankrupt, on bail for indictable offence Those who are ineligible mean people who could potentially be bias about the legal system due to their occupation/experience are removed for eg – a lawyer, someone who is disabled intellectually or cannot speak English well If a potential juror knows anyone involved in the case they may be asked to be excused from the jury removing bias Some potential jurors can be challenged by a party to a case so that those thought to be bias will also be removed – this challenge is based upon ethnicity, age, gender, they do not receive information about the potential juror. They can be challenged “pre-emptory” or “for cause”