Today bring forth the case of Michael Brown vs. Darren Wilson firstly state the argument in the case as being unjust, unfair ruling for justice of his family and the community. From the New York Times ( Michael Brown 's family attorney says grand jury proceeding is unfair). By Paul Cassel, In his opposition, the Grand Jury took too long to make its decision while the family was waiting for the verdict without reason. That is not a proper use of the grand jury decision, which made it harder to take the objections seriously. Which also criticized the parallel federal investigation for taking too long.
Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.
A grand jury is composed of twelve people, to determine if there is enough evidence to send an accused individual to trial. Although they may not determine if the accused individual is guilty or not, they can issue a formal document saying there is enough evidence for the prosecutor to take the accused to trial also known as an indictment. According to, Texas Politics Today, “a grand jury may return indictments simply because the district attorney asks them to.” Which in the end is not fair, because the jury may believe that there is not enough sufficient evidence, but because they feel pressured they issue an indictment.
Defending the Rights of the US Citizens: The Advantages of Jury Nullification. By: Bradyn Fix Jury nullification has been a fundamental aspect of the United States court system since the 1800s, but how does it make a difference in today's justice system? The process of jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case returns a not-guilty verdict even though they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This means that the jury knows the defendant has committed a crime but still chooses to let them go.
This is why lay people like jurors are important - it encourages public involvement and ensures the legal system stays
Like the Electoral College, several of the plans made by the Founding Fathers have lost some of their practicality. What worked in the past does not always work in the future, and this is the case for the jury system. The sole reason it was created was to ensure that each citizen was guaranteed a fair trial, which was a main concern due to Britain’s monarchy. In modern times, however, the judicial branch of the United States could easily give every citizen a fair trial with only a judge presiding over the case. It is clear that bench trials are superior to trials by jury because the citizens on juries are unqualified or biased, its benefits do not outweigh its burdens, and its claim to encourage civic duty is false.
The 12 jurors can work together in the back room to get any drifters caught up with the case and from that, they all can make a logical decision based upon the fact in the case. Although, if the judge drifts off, his decision is final and he may not be using all of the facts because the judge wasn't listening to the whole case. The odds are 1 judge, who may or may not have been completely focused, verses 12 people who know the facts and can make an educated decision. Any sensible person would go with the 12 up-to-date jurors. Additionally, in 2008, a 2 year old, Caylee Anthony, was killed and her mother, Casey Anthony was accused of her murder.
During a Bench Trial, the judge decides what the verdict is and his or her opinion is the only one that matters. However, a Jury Trial uses the opinion of twelve ordinary citizens. Just based on the fact that more people are deciding the verdict makes it more just. One person, the judge, may overlook a small detail. Consequently, the case could have a totally different result if that detail was not overlooked.
The jury may not be experienced enough and can make fatal mistakes. Not only are the jurors biased, they are inexperienced. As shown in cartoon 1, 2, and 3 (Document E), many of the jurors have no experiences with court and base their verdicts on factors other than what the lawyers are giving them. Examples such as the jurors being dogs, verdict based on appearance, and being distracted with other issues during the court trial. The juror is inexperienced and biased, while the judge is experienced with what is going around during a trial, and they have been trained to be able to see both sides of a story and decide on evidence and
I believe that the federal justice system is just and unbiased. The federal justice system has guidelines and rules to keep them from using power improperly and targeting groups of people based on their race. This is talked about in article “Is the Criminal Justice System Racist”. There are statistics given pertaining to the prison sentences given to African Americans, prosecution during a felony trial, and crime/prison rates.
"Jury System; a system in which the verdict in a legal case is decided by a jury on the basis of evidence submitted to it in court. " Starting at eighteen, you become eligible for jury duty – something many have to do as one of our civic duties, however, it wasn 't always this way. As far as historians know, the jury was established by William the Conqueror who brought it to England from Normandy. However, this system that he brought was nothing more than a system that had witnesses who knew of the matter in question to tell the court what they knew. It 's a known fact that our courts and laws have changed and evolved since when we first created them, otherwise lynching and stoning would still be acceptable punishments for varying crimes.
A grand jury usually consists of 16-23 people. A grand jury is presented with evidence from the U.S attorney, the prosecutor in federal criminal
However, their idea of a jury is nothing like the courtroom jury or jury as the state intended. They like Poirot, did not rely on any sort of law or otherwise to form their "jury." The "Jury" system is simply a consensus; it puts the responsibility of one man's death on the shoulders
However, the grand jury was gradually integrated into colonial society. The first conventional grand jury was not established until, 1635 (Kadish, 1996). The grand jury officially became codified in American law in 1791, with the adoption of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Kadish, 1996). While the federal government and all states in the United States currently have provisions for grand juries, only half of the states actually employ them and twenty-two require their use, to varying extents (Brenner & Shaw, 2003). California, Florida, and some other states, also use civil grand juries, investigating grand juries, or the equivalent, to oversee and investigate the conduct of government institutions, in addition to dealing with criminal indictments (Brenner & Shaw,
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
