4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + +
no edit summary
In a jury trial, the general principle is that the judge rules on issues involving the ''law,'' but the jury decides on the ''facts.'' For example, suppose a car hits a pedestrian. Usually that's the driver's fault. But suppose this particular accident actually seems to have been caused by the pedestrian. The judge would study the particular law in that particular state for that particular kind of situation. Maybe that state's law says a pedestrian who is hit by a car is ''always'' entitled to damages. Maybe that state's law says a pedestrian who is hit by a car is not entitled to damages if it's completely the pedestrian's fault. Maybe the law says it depends on whether the pedestrian is at least ''half'' at fault. The judge rules on what the ''law'' means. But the jury, not the judge, listens to the driver's and pedestrian's stories, listens to what other witnesses and the police said, and decides who is a fault, and by how much.
In a jury trial, the general principle is that the judge rules on issues involving the ''law,'' but the jury decides on the ''facts.'' For example, suppose a car hits a pedestrian. Usually that's the driver's fault. But suppose this particular accident actually seems to have been caused by the pedestrian. The judge would study the particular law in that particular state for that particular kind of situation. Maybe that state's law says a pedestrian who is hit by a car is ''always'' entitled to damages. Maybe that state's law says a pedestrian who is hit by a car is not entitled to damages if it's completely the pedestrian's fault. Maybe the law says it depends on whether the pedestrian is at least ''half'' at fault. The judge rules on what the ''law'' means. But the jury, not the judge, listens to the driver's and pedestrian's stories, listens to what other witnesses and the police said, and decides who is a fault, and by how much.
Juries are supposed to be impartial and unbiased. They swear a solemn oath, and most jurors take that oath very seriously. The process of jury selection tries to guarantee that juries will be unbiased. Of course, the lawyers on both sides are trying their best to make sure that the jury selection ''is'' biased—to favor their own client. The process varies from state to state and locale to locale. Typically citizens are chosen at random, perhaps from the voting rolls. They are mailed a "summons" to report for jury duty. Jury duty can take days, weeks, or more. A juror must take time off from work. Sometimes jurors are paid a small amount but it is usually much less than they would have earned at their regular job. Busy people may want to avoid serving. A person may be excused from serving, but only if they can show that it would cause them a real hardship.
Although Americans think of jury trials as fundamental to justice, they are by no means universal. They are characteristic of the British and French systems of justice. Jury trials were introduced in Russia in 1864, abolished by the Russian revolution in 1917, and reintroduced in 1993. Many Europeans find it baffling and inappropriate to hand over such an important step in the administration of justice to a panel of non-expert citizens.
Although Americans think of jury trials as fundamental to justice, they are by no means universal. They are characteristic of the British and French systems of justice. Jury trials were introduced in Russia in 1864, abolished by the Russian revolution in 1917, and reintroduced in 1993. Many Europeans find it baffling and inappropriate to hand over such an important step in the administration of justice to a panel of non-expert citizens.