The jury fulfils a very important function in the legal system. You are entitled to be tried by jury inless the alleged offence is a minor one or one that is being tried in the Special Criminal Court. However, a jury is not required in every legal case. There will be a jury in some civil cases such as defamation and assault cases. However, for the majority of civil cases such as personal injuries actions and family law cases, there is no jury - it is the judge who decides the outcome.
The jury consists of 12 members of the public who sit in a box to one side of the judge. One of the jurors is selected as a foreman of the jury by the members of the jury before the case starts. He or she acts as an informal chairperson and spokesperson for the jury.
The 12 jurors in a case are selected from a number of people who have been called to do their jury service on that day.
Section 23 of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 amended the Juries Act 1976 so that the jury can consist of up to 15 members, if the case is expected to last more than 2 months.
The jurors are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether, on the facts of the case, a person is guilty or not guilty of the offence for which he or she has been charged.
The jury must reach its verdict by considering only the evidence introduced in court and the directions of the judge. The jury does not interpret the law. It follows the directions of the judge as regards legal matters.
During all stages of the trial, jurors may take notes of proceedings. Jurors may also pass notes to the foreman or forewoman of the jury to ask the judge to explain certain aspects of the case.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jurors are given an issue paper, which states the issues that the jury must consider in reaching its verdict. When a jury consists of more than 12 members, only 12 are selected to consider the verdict.
A Court Garda or other official is required to keep the jury together until the verdict is reached. The jury is taken into the jury room and allowed no outside communication at all, with the exception of notes to the Court Registrar. They may keep a copy of the indictment, the exhibits and their notes.
Jurors may send out notes asking for the law to be further explained or for the judge to remind them of the details of the evidence. They will then be brought back into the court for the judge to give them such assistance as he/she can but there can be no new evidence at this stage.
In reaching its verdict in a criminal trial, the jury must be satisfied that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt means that if there are two reasons given in the case and both are possible explanations for what happened, taken together with the evidence presented, the jury should give the person the benefit of the doubt and decide on a verdict of not guilty.
If the case is a civil one, the jury must be satisfied with its verdict on the balance of probabilities.
It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In a criminal case, a verdict need not be unanimous where there are not fewer than 11 jurors if 10 of them agree on a verdict after considering the case for a reasonable time (not less than two hours). In a civil trial, a verdict may be reached by a majority of 9 of the 12 members.
When the jury has reached its decision, it will return to the court and the verdict will be read out by the foreman.
The jury has no role in sentencing. This decision is left up to the judge following submissions made by both sides.
For more information about acting as a juror, read our document on jury service.
- Decide the facts of the case only
- Take directions relating to law from the trial judge, whether or not they agree with him/her
- Remain impartial and independent
- Remain uninfluenced by any person. It is an offence for any person who is not a member of the jury to attempt to influence a juror in any way. If any person speaks to a juror about the case, the juror should inform the court or a member of the Gardai.
- Keep statements made in the jury room confidential. Jurors should not discuss the case with any person other than members of the jury. It is contempt of court punishable by fine and/or imprisonment to repeat any statements made in the jury room.
The Verdict Of Tom Robinson In Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird
The Verdict of Tom Robinson in Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird
A closer look at the ways of the South during the time period 1925 through 1935 reveals the accurate representation of society in Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird. Many of the fictional events occurring in the novel are closely related to actual historical events that took place in the South during the time period in which the book is set. Most importantly, the trial of Tom Robinson illustrates how life was for a black man in a world dominated by white men. Tom Robinson’s trial can be paralleled to the trials of the Scottsboro boys, the horrific lynching that occurred in the South, and the general attitude of white society towards black society during the time period. Historical evidence verifies that Tom Robinson is proven guilty before his trial ever begins.
The mid 1920s to mid 1930s were an especially dark time in history for the South. Many terrible things happened, predominantly directed toward people with black skin. “Whites in the South regarded blacks as inferiors, both intellectually and biologically” (Gado). To express their hatred for blacks, white people often participated in hate crimes directed toward Negroes. Lynching was very prominent in the South during this time period. “The term “lynching” refers only to the concept of vigilantism, in which citizens would assume the role of judge, jury and executioner” (Gado). The actual process of lynching was gruesome and incredibly violent. Black victims were hacked to death, dragged behind cars, burned, beaten, whipped, shot, and persecuted in many other sickening ways. James Irwin was the unfortunate victim of a lynching that occurred on January 31, 1930 in Ocilla, Georgia. Although, Irwin never received a trial, he was charged with the murder of a white girl. An enraged mob took Irwin into custody and proceeded to torture him. His fingers and toes were cut off, his teeth pulled out with pliers, and finally he was castrated. The rampaging mob was still not satisfied; Irwin was then burned in front of hundreds of onlookers (Gado). Often onlookers would take pieces of the corpse as souvenirs of the event. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was frequently the establishment culpable for many of these gruesome lynchings; the main purpose of the KKK was to terrorize black citizens. “The Ku Klux Klan was fully dedicated to the oppression of the black man” (Gado). Lynching frequently enjoyed the approval of the public, and no one was ever punished for this barbaric killing. “In many photos of lynchings...members of the mob can be seen smiling and grinning for the camera. They demonstrate no fear of prosecution or reprisal. They had none”(Gado). The KKK had no fear of being punished because “the group was so influential that many politicians felt compelled to court it or even to join…Senators, congressmen, governors, judges at all levels…donned the hood and robe” (Gado). “For under the white robes…were often the...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%