Main Juror Jury Functions

Improved Essays
What is the main function of a jury? Why is this duty imposed on the jury? Why do you believe some people do not want to perform their duty by sitting on a Jury? What are some of the potential issues or risks if they do?
A juror, in this day and age, is needed in order for defendants to receive a fair and competent trial. Not every Juror, however, qualifies to attend a trial and determine the faith of the defendant. In order for a person to qualify as a juror, they are required to sustain certain functions in the court of law. That being said, the main function that a Juror must follow is the idea of determining who is a reliable witness and which statement is the most credible (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). Once the testimony has been evaluated
…show more content…
Just because one gives an excuse as to why they can 't attend Jury duty, it doesn 't mean that it 'll be approved. That being said, there are four principles that must be used to excuse a Juror before a capital trial goes into effect. The first principle that will excuse a juror in a capital case is if he or she does not have full knowledge as to what capital punishment is and what it consist of (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). In other words, every Juror must know what they are putting themselves into when they are obligated to attend a case that may consist of the death penalty. The second principles, on the other hand, requires Jurors to use the law properly when it comes to capital punishment, for if a Juror is telling the judge in Voir Dire that he or she will not convict the defendant if he or she is going to trial for the death penalty, they will not be allow to join the Juror pool (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). No matter what religion the potential Juror is, everyone deserves justice. If, in the eyes of the law, the prosecution demonstrated enough evidence to convict and put someone to death, than it should be done accordingly. The third principle that will exclude a person from become a Jury in a capital case is the mental state of the person, for if the individual has amnesia or dementia, nine times out of ten, the person will be excused from the trial. The court officials need the proper person to remember all the testimonies and evidence obtained so a fair verdict could be given (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). The last thing the Justice System wants is to have a mistrial. In other words, a mistrial is likely if it 's later determined the Juror pool consisted of impaired people. The last and final principle that will eliminate a person from a capital case is if it 's determined that the judge treated a mentally incapable person unfairly (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). Even if the person 's

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Also, there must be a legal basis for the appeal such as alleged material error in the trial, despite not because the losing party did not agree with the verdict. If the defendant was convicted through the plea bargain then the right of appealing is demolished. Any convicted offenders are able to appeal their case based on the matter of law. When there is an appeal, the court reviews the case looking at the previous proceedings in the lower courts and will not consider new evidence. The appellate courts look at the record and the written briefs filed by the defendant and the prosecutor of the appeal.…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To be part of such an important body comes with responsibilities and rights. One in question, is the right to nullify a law. Jury nullification is when the jury knows that the person is guilty but rejects the evidence as well as refuses to apply the law because either the juror wants to send a message about a social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the results stated by the law is opposing to…

    • 1779 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    You can’t punish someone based on what they did; Subjectivism will give anyone on this planet a chance to avoid the death penalty. How you might ask, to someone murder might be the biggest sin in the world, but in this system that’s not a moral fact. It’s just how you feel and your opinion towards the objective but again there is no moral objective fact towards your statement. A view like this is what we need, other people can justify that a murderer doesn’t deserve the death penalty. People will open their minds more broadly and look at the person as a human being.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He suggests, “motions for retrial based on false testimony presented by prosecution witnesses should be governed by a standard drawn from newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct” (p. 52). He also explains how a proper test for courtroom misconduct is more likely achievable if there is a great chance that the jury is aware of the false testimony and would avoid convicting the defendant. By acknowledging the challenges that the system faces in dealing with courtroom misconduct, the author indicates that there is a need to hold professional members of the court with a greater amount of accountability. Although there is the potential consequence for retrial, some attorneys…

    • 652 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If defendants were forced to testify they wouldn’t only have access to answering the questions from the defense attorney, possibly explaining the evidence against them, but they’d also be vulnerable to the cross-examination of the prosecution. The prosecution is supposedly supposed to uphold justice, meaning if they don’t have a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, then they should drop the charges. However, we can imagine that that rarely happens, even if the defendant is innocent. Therefore, if an innocent defendant is being cross examined, the prosecution should be convinced of their guilt, otherwise, they should have dropped the charges. It’s also important to note that an overwhelming majority, almost two-thirds, of those convicted of crimes haven’t graduated high school.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Plea Bargaining

    • 610 Words
    • 3 Pages

    (Rennison et al.). The bad part of Brady rights is that it hides police and prosecutor misconduct. The prosecutor can charge the defendant more than what the defendant deserves. Judges aren’t really involved in plea deals (Robb 2017). If I were convicted of a non-violent felony (first of all that wouldn’t even happen) I would choose to go to trial because I’m given the chance to have more time to prepare for it.…

    • 610 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Analysis: The Jury System

    • 2103 Words
    • 9 Pages

    – Questions concerning whether persons with specific mindsets on certain issues should be placed on the jury stand of similar court cases that opposes the persons’ principles (DWI case and the prison abolitionists). In such instances, those persons should not. Therefore, without peremptory challenges, the specter of unfairness could linger over the verdicts and further eroding community confidence in the justice…

    • 2103 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Judge Doe is excluding evidence during trial yet the prosecution asked the judge for an Evidentiary Hearing so they can argue their case on why the evidence should be allowed. The defense will also have their chance to argue their case on why the evidence should not be allowed to be presented at trial. The judge agreed to an Evidentiary Hearing but our argument will quickly be under the exclusionary rule because the police knowingly violated the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights. The exclusionary rule "is a judicial rule that makes evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, state or federal laws, or court rules inadmissible" (Anderson & Gardner, p. 214). Therefore, by law, the evidence excludes any evidence…

    • 1291 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Once they are dead its over no mulligans, so it should be difficult to make this decision. Koch has a great quote where he says; “If government functioned only when the possibility of error didn 't exist, government wouldn 't function at all.” meaning that government his flawed at all levels and should not be trusted with life. The most important replay Koch gives is does the death penalty cheapen the cost of a life. The death penalty must be seen as the ultimate punishment and not throw around. Yes Koch says if you cannot measure the cost of a human life, but murder can be a ruthless crime, but to condemn another man to death is not only costing that man his life but the emotional weight on the judge jury and the…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Double Jeopardy, in the Fifth Amendment, claims that one cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Once a trial has ended the government cannot choose to include new evidence and put a person on trial again. The right of Double Jeopardy is extremely important because it hinders the government from having the power to continuously try a person for the same crime. To be put on trial multiple times can get expensive, therefore it would make the most sense to only put a person on trial once. Although people should be tried if they have sincerely done something wrong, Double Jeopardy protects the defendants from having to constantly fear that they will be imprisoned.…

    • 898 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays