This Article is written by Anju Malik of Department of laws, Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalya, Khanpur Kalan, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Abstract
This article presents all – inclusive synopsis about the “Principle of Jury selection and Jury Nullification” First of all we know the meaning of word “Jury” this means “A jury is a group of persons chosen to decide on particular facts in light of particular evidence. This might be a legal jury, a panel of individuals sworn to ascertain the truth in a judicial proceeding. A group of people sworn to render an accurate decision in accordance with the proof offered in a court of law In this article we will study about the meaning of Jury selection and Jury Nullification, functions performed by a jury alongwith the status of Jury Nullification and Jury selection in different countries of the world.
Keywords
Jury selection and Jury Nullification, Jury System, Jurors, voire dire.
Introduction
The jury system was a concept that developed in Britain during the Norman Conquest, but the roles and tasks it served back then were very different from those it does today. Former jurors merely serve as witnesses when comparing it, giving knowledge about all local matters. But as time went on, they began serving as judges in both civil and criminal cases. [1] King Henry II made several changes in functions of Jury and the jury gained significance under his supervision only when they transitioned from merely reporting information about the matter to considering the evidence that had been provided by the parties engaged in the controversy. And gradually with the time, there were several changes made as one of the important changes that are still applicable was, the juror must know as least as possible about the facts before the trial is being held. Although the jury is regarded as the most crucial and basic component of the English legal system, it is hardly used and involved in a small percentage of cases currently. The jury has done its best to ensure that the criminal justice system always works to achieve justice in the favor of the innocent public rather than in the favor of unjust political leaders, and this point should be recognized. Thus, this promotes not only a sound criminal justice system but also a sound society where the law cannot be changed to suit the wishes of any individual and where the criminal justice system and its procedures cannot be exploited. Jury has flourished to the fullest extent during this time, as Lord Devlin noted in a 1956 article. Trial by jury should be viewed as much more than just a tool of justice; it is a candle that keeps freedom burning. In England and Wales specifically, as well as many other nations, the jury has played a significant part in the criminal justice system. However, it has been said that the unwritten constitution made the constitutional position weak or fragile. The right to a jury trial is not mentioned in the English constitution because there is no written document governing the country. Although it may be modified, it is governed by the regular legislative legislation.
History of Jury
It is debatable where the jurors came from. It might have originated in England or been brought there by the Norman invasion in 1066. Initially, the jury members were local residents who rendered verdicts based on what they personally knew. The disintegration of medieval civilization and the expansion of towns altered the function of the jury, which was now asked to decide the case’s facts based on the evidence provided in court. The common law may have been established and the country’s courts centralized under the king in part due to the jury’s availability in the king’s courts. Non-rational trial methods, such as the ordeal, in which the defendant. The history of Jury system is a very debatable topic exactly no one know from where the concept of Jury system came.
Jury Selection
[2] Jury selection is the process of summoning, questioning and selecting jurors to serve on a jury for a particular trial. Typically, the court will first mail jury summonses to individuals chosen at random from lists of registered voters and drivers. Those who are selected must meet the qualifications Jury Selection, basically the term acknowledges the selection of people who will act as the members of a jury during a trial. When discussing the procedures for selecting jurors, it should be noted that they were essentially chosen at random from the community. This is the rule that lists of jury members comply with their voter registrations and driving license. They were required to provide email addresses, from which they received summonses and were subsequently called into court. In essence, the word “jury selection” refers to the process of choosing individuals to serve on a jury during a trial. When discussing the procedures for selecting jurors, it should be noted that they were essentially chosen at random from members of the community. According to this provision, jurors’ names must match those on their driver’s license and voter registration lists. They were required to provide email addresses, and from such addresses, summonses were sent before they were called into court. [3] Dealing with prospective juniors they are randomly selected to sit in a jury box. And now or at this stage they are usually questioned by judges and similarly by attorneys in the US (United State). In many of these situations, depending on the applicable jurisdiction, lawyers or judges may need to set up a challenge for cause argument or even employ peremptory challenges. Additionally, there are a number of situations when the death penalty is an option. In these situations, the jury must always be “death-qualified,” which simply means that anyone who opposes the death sentence must be excluded. Trial advocacy classes instruct students in the jury selection method known as Voir dire. However, it is also true that while selecting a jury, lawyers may advocate for the use of experts. Additionally, the jury is said to be empaneled once it has been chosen.
Voir Dire
As a result, both the defense and the prosecution may object to a particular juror during this broad topic assessment for the chosen jurors. And this entire procedure is known as Voir dire in all common law nations. When referring to Voir dire, it is possible to ask both generic questions that may be answered by the entire group or by a show of hands as well as specific questions that could be addressed verbally. In many countries, it is also common for counsel for parties to interrogate prospective jurors.
Additionally, the manner of rejection varies according to the scopes of other nations.
- As a result, several countries, including those in Australia, France, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, and the United States, typically grant both defenses and the prosecution some challenges known as peremptory. Additionally, there is no requirement for any kind of justifications for excluding a certain juror from the process. And typically, these decisions were made by the defense lawyers if they felt any sort of emotional connection, if they shared the victim’s profession or background, or if the lawyers determined during the trial that there might be a chance that a juror would feel sympathy or goodwill toward the victim for a variety of reasons.[4]However, under the Batson Rule, the party who exercised preemptive strike must also give a justification for the exclusion in the United States if one party excludes a member of a minority group and the other party objects.
- Lawyers often have the option to prepare a challenge for the cause argument for the judge. The goal of this defense is to demonstrate how particular jury histories render them biased and unfit for the amenity or service.
- Regarding England, it is said that these objections must be well-founded in order to effect a defendant who is aware of the prospective juror.
About United States of America
Comparatively speaking to other nations, the Voir dire procedure is utilized considerably more extensively in the United States of America, although its actual performance is also debatable. When a question about juror privacy is posed, the term “impartial jury” is quickly defined.
[5] Some people are curious to know whether the intensive interrogation of jurors was done or not. And while comparing it an opponent argues this as both sides get confidence in the verdict. When the death sentence is imposed in capital cases in the United States of America, it is crucial that the jury be death qualified. In essence, members of the jury who are entitled to receive the death penalty are expelled. And this guarantees that, in a particular case when lawful facts and circumstances state, guide, or issue criminal warrants, the jury will also offer such guidance for the case.[6] Even though the Supreme Court declared the particular practice to be illegal. However, the death penalty is constantly contested and criticized by a variety of detractors who claim that death penalty juries are more likely than regular juries to find defendants guilty of crimes.
Jury Nullification
Jury nullification, in its strictest sense, happens when a jury finds a defendant not guilty while having no reasonable doubt that they have breached the law. The statute is stated to be negated in that specific situation since the jury’s Not Guilty result cannot be reversed and because the jurors cannot be held accountable for their decision. The term “jury nullification” is only used when the jury in council returns a verdict of not guilty, even when the defendant may be or is guilty of the offense that has been charged against him. By doing the above-discussed acts, the jury essentially nullifies or invalidates the law that, if it were to be followed, would be unfair or incorrect against the defendant, whose life and freedom are at stake. This fundamental set of rules was derived from the theory that asserts or begins the notion and philosophy that we live in a free country that is controlled by the Bill of Rights by our predecessors to safeguard us from the inferior standards like misuse of power.
The idea was added through constitutional amendment, and while it aids in all forms of criminal prosecution because of it, there is a chance—or perhaps we should say, the whole possibility—of having fair and quick trials that unquestionably include biased juries. Thomas Jefferson, one of the famous spokespersons of democracy, was also an American Founding father quoted it as “I consider this provision as the only way through which the government can hold with the principles and laws of the Constitution” and without this our freedom is unimaginable.
The idea was adopted through an amendment, and it is helpful in all forms of criminal prosecutions since it increases the likelihood of fair trials that are quick and undoubtedly have biased juries. One of the most well-known advocates of democracy and an American Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, said it best: “I consider this provision as the only way through which the government can hold with the principles and laws of the Constitution” and without it, we cannot even begin to imagine what freedom would be like.
Regarding nullification, there is no official aspect of the criminal process involved; rather, there is just the factual aspect, which is only a result of two laws controlling the systems in which it is present:
- In essence, jurors cannot be penalized for coming to the incorrect conclusion.
- In many jurisdictions, it is a fundamental law that a defendant who has been exonerated cannot be tried for the same offenses a second time.
A lot of debates surround jury nullification because of its broad application. According to some, it is one of the key components and a defense against unjustified detention and government authoritarianism. As a breach of the right to a jury trial, it is also known as the opposite. Furthermore, many believe it to be a breach of the jurors’ oath. When referring to the United States, some individuals believe that the jurors’ oath is invalid, while others see the oath’s relationship to or allusion to deliverance—which is crucial for the revocation of unjust laws—as valid.
However, there are always some consequences associated with the jury’s power to overturn a particular legislation. When compared to the current situation, various problems arise, including:
- Whether or not the juries are advised of their ability to void.
- Whether a judge has the power to dismiss a particular juror from the panel if they fail to follow instructions regarding how to interpret the law.
- Whether a court ought to punish the jury nullification.
Jury Nullification in reference to Germany and Canada
In Germany, basically in the timeline of 1921, Armenian Genocide (deliberate killing of a large number of people) survivor was assassinated Talat Pasha in Berlin and survivor considered as main man beside the assassination. But the survivor’s lawyer contested in front of the jury that their client was not guilty and the jury held him with the verdict ‘not guilty’.[7] In Germany, basically in the timeline of 1921, Armenian Genocide (deliberate killing of a large number of people) survivor was assassinated Talat Pasha in Berlin and survivor considered as main man beside the assassination. But the survivor’s lawyer contested in front of the jury that their client was not guilty and the jury held him with the verdict ‘not guilty’.
Jury nullification is a rather rare occurrence in Canada. Unlike the United Nations, their prosecution always has the option to appeal for the conviction that results in acquittal. There are mechanisms for appealing, but it is commonly understood that the Crown can never do so on the grounds of an unfair conviction.
Functions of Jury
The answer to the issue of what a jury does is always the same: to give the case evidence more weight and to determine the actual facts and outcomes of a particular case. The judge here directs the jury by outlining pertinent legal principles on which the panel must base its deliberations and reach a decision in each given case. And the judge will determine the proper penalty in that situation if the case has a criminal element and the jury returns a guilty judgment. And it is undeniable that the jury has rendered judgment and made a decision regarding the appropriate level of damages in every civil case.
Case law
THE NANAVATI CASE
One of the most significant and contentious cases handled by the Indian judiciary is K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. This case received unusual media coverage, which most likely had a significant impact on India’s jury system. It started with a jury decision of not guilty and ended with the defendant being convicted guilty of murder by the Supreme Court. This case serves as one of the most significant illustrations of the supremacy of law in Indian law, demonstrating that everyone is subject to the same standards of justice regardless of their status or social level. The Latin maxim ‘in quo quis delinquit in eo de jure est puniendus’ means “in whatever thing one offends, in that he ought to be punished according to law”. The punishment for a crime should be appropriate for the offense. Criminal statutes are rigidly interpreted, as shown by the Nanavati case, and this is true of all criminal laws. Through this case, it is clear that the judiciary upholds justice and serves as a shield for the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion
Although it is a universal truth that things need to be modified over time, as also discussed in the aforementioned research work, jury selection and jury nullification were both regarded as important principles in our history and it could be said that the process of having justice started from these provisions only.
References:
[1] “Current Grand Jury Reports – Miami Dade office of state attorney” Mimasio.com January 2014
[2]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_selection.
[3] The Journal of legal History, 1973
[4] The law: women, gimps, blacks, hippies, need not apply, time, June 4, 1973.
[5]https://bnwjournal.com/2020/12/10/principles-of-jury-selection-and-nullification/
[6] Samuel Gross (1996), The Risk of Death: why erroneous conviction is common in capital cases
[7] The place of explained verdict in the English criminal Justice system: Decision Making and criminal trial. Universal Publishers.
0 Comments