An accused who has been in trouble in the past and feels she has not been treated fairly, when in front of a judge alone, will often insist on a jury trial, believing she will get a better hearing in front of 12 ordinary people. Sometimes, simply as a matter of principle, accused persons want representatives of their community to pronounce judgment opposed to a judge.
Sometimes the opposite occurs, where an accused declines his right to a jury because he does not want local people to know the details of what he is alleged to have done. A defence lawyer who is advising an accused may have different considerations. Cases which are mainly about the law are probably better suited to the assessment of a judge.
In a jury trial, the judge explains to the jury what the applicable law is; the jury then has to apply that law to the evidence and determine the verdict. A criminal trial must always begin with 12 jurors, and the law allows for up to two to be excused as the trial proceeds.
Cases where the main question is what precisely took place between the people involved are sometimes better suited for a jury, but not always.
Even for a judge, finding a coherent, logical way through a tangled web of evidence can be a challenge. Juries are always told they must not allow sympathy to play a role in their decision-making, but in the real world sympathy is almost always a factor taken into account in choosing whether to have a jury trial. An accused who will likely be seen with sympathy and compassion by other persons may more likely want a jury. Sympathy and compassion can also weigh against an accused, in which case they will more likely not want a jury trial.
If a particularly vulnerable person is the victim or an important prosecution witness, the accused might want a judge alone: a judge must dispassionately apply the law, and provide logical reasons which show she has done that, no matter how sad or sympathetic the plight of the victim might be. Similarly, if the crime alleged is particularly violent and the evidence expected to be graphic, a judge might be a better choice, as he or she will be less likely swayed by the horror of what they are hearing and seeing than might be the case with a jury, who might let feelings of revulsion and anger sway their reasoning.
In the most serious situations murder trials the Criminal Code requires the trial be in front of a jury unless both sides agree to have a judge sit alone. The theory is that in the most serious cases, where someone has died and someone faces imprisonment for the rest of his or her life, community representatives, under the guidance of a judge who knows the law, should make this important decision.
In murder trials, we can usually be satisfied that the final verdict has been reached after the careful consideration and close attention paid by 12 ordinary community members who have brought their common sense and everyday wisdom to bear upon the issues they have been told to consider. We view juries as a fundamental protector of our liberties and freedoms, — 12 ordinary, independent fellow citizens who can protect us from the whims and arbitrariness of decisions made by officials who are beholden to the sovereign, a local figure, or other arms of government.
The Right to Trial by Jury. Serious Offenses Only According to the Supreme Court, the jury-trial right applies only when "serious" offenses are at hand—petty offenses don't invoke it. Blanton v. City of N. Las Vegas , U. Adding Up Offenses Prosecutors regularly file more than one charge against defendants. State-Law Protection The Supreme Court's determination of what constitutes a serious offense and thereby entitles one to a jury trial sets a minimum standard.
Talk to a Lawyer It's possible that the decision as to whether to go to trial will rest largely on whether a judge or a jury will be the fact finder. Talk to a Lawyer Start here to find criminal defense lawyers near you.
Practice Area Please select Zip Code. How it Works Briefly tell us about your case Provide your contact information Choose attorneys to contact you. Legal Information. Criminal Law Information. Proof and Defenses in Criminal Cases. Getting a Lawyer for your Criminal Case.
Steps in a Criminal Defense Case. Arraignment: Your First Court Appearance. Plea Bargains in a Criminal Case. Legal Elements of Common Crimes. Expungement and Criminal Records. The judge sits at the front of the court and controls proceedings. They control the trial and decides questions of law. A High Court Judge is called 'my lord'. A county court judge, sitting in the Crown Court, is called 'your honour'.
The first person selected as a juror acts as the foreperson of the jury. The defendant sits in the dock accompanied by a prison officer. Youths appearing in court sit next to the dock. They swear the jury and co-ordinate the court proceedings. Once a jury has been chosen, two jury keepers usually members of court security staff are also sworn.
Their job is to make sure that no one contacts jurors during the trial and to provide a way for jurors to communicate with the court. Also known as counsel, barristers wear black robes and wigs. Prosecution counsel presents the evidence against the defendant to the court.
Sometimes solicitor advocates will present evidence in the Crown Court in place of a barrister. The solicitor advocates will carry out the same role as a barrister but don't wear a wig or gown.
Solicitors sit either behind or in front of counsel. They will have previously instructed counsel given them the details of the case before the case has come to court. They don't speak in court except when the jury is being selected. There are many types of witnesses that can be called during a case. Witnesses may include forensic scientists, police officers, medical experts, eyewitnesses and others.
Some evidence is very detailed and specialised. Listen carefully to all the evidence and pay attention to any exhibits, as this will be the basis on which you must decide your verdict. The Crown Court is a court of record. All proceedings are accurately recorded by a digital recording system operated by the court clerk, or by a shorthand writer or stenographer.
If there is a stenographer or shorthand writer, they usually sit beside the court clerk and records everything that is said in court. This record may be used if the case goes to appeal. The case follows a set pattern. The court clerk reads out the charges against the accused person.
The prosecution begins by outlining details of the case, calling and questioning witnesses. When the prosecution has finished questioning each witness, it is the defence counsel's turn to question the same witnesses. This is cross-examination.
When the prosecution case is complete, the defence follows a similar procedure by calling the witnesses who can be cross-examined by the prosecution. In a few cases, such as cases involving vulnerable adult or child witnesses, the witness may sit in a separate room in the courthouse and give evidence to the court using video-link equipment.
A vulnerable adult or child may have an intermediary present to help them in giving their evidence to the court. There may be times when the legal professionals and the judge need time to discuss a point of law. The judge will ask the jury to leave the court for a short time.
Once the matter has been resolved, the jury will be asked back to the courtroom.
0コメント