As part of the Constitution, a jury, made up of twelve peers and two alternates, acts as an important part of the U. S. Justice system. Most believe the system has failed, and that it is time for American Trial Jury Reform. A belief that has broadened most recently in relation to enforcing hate crimes, and other acts of aggression between one or more persons. Crimes that also include several bullying incidents in which few penalties have been placed on offenders.
Those working towards reform in the U. S. Justice system have seen the results of this reality first hand. When a jury hands down a verdict, then the sentence should be in line with the facts and precedents related to the case as presented in evidence, and nothing more. Although, it is difficult when either the judge, or jury has previous knowledge.
While less likely when it comes to jurors, judges whom have seen evidence prior to the trial, often have preconceived notions about the defendant, if only on a subconscious level. As such, one aspect of reform works to correct this issue so that if a judge has previous knowledge, the information is then also presented to the jury prior to the beginning of the trial.
Criminal cases are often now argued in a hearing, or series of hearings when and where possible. Though, if a settlement can not be reached through hearings and mediation, then the next step is typically a trial. One big difference in mediation versus a court trial is that others do not get to review the same files and evidence.
If a trial takes places, judge and jury can often bounce off one another along with the defense and prosecution. When a judge gives instructions, the jury need follow; It can also be good to ask which are advisory, and, which are required. While witness tampering can be criminal in nature, there are also mistakes due to misunderstandings related to judicial instructions.
As all cases involve legal issues and matters which are private in nature, it is essential that there are also guidelines set related to the distribution of such knowledge. Generally, the instructions would be the same as in a court of law in which the jurors are commanded to not talk, or write about the case for a specified amount of time once a verdict is handed down in the case.
At which point, each trial becomes a learning experience not only for the attorneys, plaintiffs and defendant, but all those involved. If a judge desires to hear legal arguments in order to make a decision on any motions which may have been presented, then the jury needs to hear those same arguments to decide the verdict. The jury should also be given all copies of Cds, transcripts or other items presented as evidence during the trial.
Ultimately, when it comes to reform, it is probably something that will remain in the background for quite some time. As to holding court and other officials responsible for actions which appear to be in question, that is up to the citizens, jurors and others who work with the authorities, courts on a daily basis.
Those working towards reform in the U. S. Justice system have seen the results of this reality first hand. When a jury hands down a verdict, then the sentence should be in line with the facts and precedents related to the case as presented in evidence, and nothing more. Although, it is difficult when either the judge, or jury has previous knowledge.
While less likely when it comes to jurors, judges whom have seen evidence prior to the trial, often have preconceived notions about the defendant, if only on a subconscious level. As such, one aspect of reform works to correct this issue so that if a judge has previous knowledge, the information is then also presented to the jury prior to the beginning of the trial.
Criminal cases are often now argued in a hearing, or series of hearings when and where possible. Though, if a settlement can not be reached through hearings and mediation, then the next step is typically a trial. One big difference in mediation versus a court trial is that others do not get to review the same files and evidence.
If a trial takes places, judge and jury can often bounce off one another along with the defense and prosecution. When a judge gives instructions, the jury need follow; It can also be good to ask which are advisory, and, which are required. While witness tampering can be criminal in nature, there are also mistakes due to misunderstandings related to judicial instructions.
As all cases involve legal issues and matters which are private in nature, it is essential that there are also guidelines set related to the distribution of such knowledge. Generally, the instructions would be the same as in a court of law in which the jurors are commanded to not talk, or write about the case for a specified amount of time once a verdict is handed down in the case.
At which point, each trial becomes a learning experience not only for the attorneys, plaintiffs and defendant, but all those involved. If a judge desires to hear legal arguments in order to make a decision on any motions which may have been presented, then the jury needs to hear those same arguments to decide the verdict. The jury should also be given all copies of Cds, transcripts or other items presented as evidence during the trial.
Ultimately, when it comes to reform, it is probably something that will remain in the background for quite some time. As to holding court and other officials responsible for actions which appear to be in question, that is up to the citizens, jurors and others who work with the authorities, courts on a daily basis.
About the Author:
You can visit tunno.com for more helpful information about Understanding American Trial Jury Reform Protests.