United States C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I found the following text under a {{inappropriate tone}} tag IN THE ARTICLE. This is appalling. Please remember that anything related to ώchanging the article belongs here except the new words themselves!! Jake95_(talk!) 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How can this guy write a whole section on the right to a jury trial and not mention that the 7th amendment does not gurantee or create any right to a jury trial, it preserves the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law. At common law means, in that context, in England. In England, in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity, the former came with a right to a jury, the later did not. Modernly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 says there shall be one form of action, a civil action, and no legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury. Today, in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury, even though FRCP 39c allows a court to use one at its discretion. The test for whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791 is a research nightmere. First you look to the type of action it is, interpleaders, class actions, etc... were purely equity inventions. Second, you look at the relief sought, damages were purely legal even though equity could order them, but injunctions, rescission, specific performance were all equitable remedies.

Need to know more? Check the main cases on point: Beacon Theatres 359 US 500, Dairy Queen 369 US 469, Ross 396 US 531

• Although it is written in an inappropriate tone, he does have a valid point. The right to a jury is not guaranteed in civil cases. In the legal field, this is actually an ambiguous and controversial issue. Besides the wrong tone of voice, everything he said is valid, and should be addressed in the article. It might possibly be enough to warrant a new subheading or article which specifically addresses the 'right to a jury', and where this right comes from. (i.e. relevant U.S. Constitution amendments and case law.) CougRoyalty (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)who cares?[reply]

Q: What are the advantages of the jury trial? It's urgent

A: All members of the jury must find the defendant guilty, special circumstances excepting, or the defendant is considered not guilty. However, if found guilty, the defendant must pay for court costs. (anon)

So is this the same as a trial by jury or not? If not, make trial by jury not a redirect here. Evercat 02:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair question. This is simply an issue of semantics; most state constitutions use the language interchangably. Folajimi 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2006 Wikipedia says in the paragraph entitled: United States:

In the United States every person accused of a Felony has a constitutional right to a trial by jury. However, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT designate only a person charged with a Felony having this right, therefore, it sounds to me that todays Judiciary is taking the law upon themselves to circumvent what the U. S. Constitution says. The Fourteenth Amendment plainly says, which Wikipedia writes: "In ALL criminal prosecutions (ALL, NOT only Felonies)the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

The U.S. Constitution is quite plain in what it is saying and I don't see it giving ANY authority for ANY Jurist to Circumvent this Supreme Law of the Land. Todays judiciary are often circumventing the law, rather than following the law, thereby making their own UNLAWFUL LAWS at the expense of the individual! I'm surprised that Wikipedia stated the Felony clause as a fact, rather than a circumvention of what the Supreme Law of the Land says.

I believe that rather than following the constitutional law, the judiciary prefers to be expedient in their reckless ways to deny the non-felon his rights as if it doesn't matter, it is only a missdemeanor, whereas to the defendant, it most certainly matters. His/Her life is not to be toyed with as if inconsequential Sluffing the defendant's rights off as if it is meaningless to the judiciary.

j_rodrigues@sbcglobal.net

This is a type of trial as opposed to a bench trial and should be it's own article I think. The topics should avoid overlap as much as possible, but I think they are distinct topics. I didn't want to remove the merge notice if someone felt strongly about it though. - Taxman 18:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, this is a very distinct topic. I'm going to remove the merge notice. - Jersyko talk 01:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've put up a new suggestion to merge, not with Trial, but with Jury. There's really A LOT of overlap with that page. 72.70.228.165 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not discuss the origin of trial by jury, introduced by Athenian lawgiver Solon. Nor does the article discuss the historical trial by jury in Greece, or B.C. in general.

Does anyone know enough about this to write a reasonable section?? I doubt it. Jake95_(talk!) 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[moved my question from Talk:Jury, although I see it's similar to the post above]

The article mentions only the Magna Carta as the beginning of Jury Trials.

While this may be the origin of the concept of modern trials, should there be no mention of the Athenian trial by peers, which could include juries of several hundred free men, such as the Trial of Socrates? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 09:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jury instructions doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I don't think it deserves an article all its own. What do you think? Mrees1997 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged or dropped in a French legal system article. Calwatch 07:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th amendment does not generally apply to the states....eg there is no Constitutional right to a jury trial in state civil cases, except where enforcing a fed right... I added this to the text. I hope this clarifies for those who are unclear about the state v. fed Constitution.... and the rights accorded to citizens as incorporated into the 14th Amendment due process clause (thus applying to the states). The 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases is one of those few exceptions that did not become part of the bill of rights. THat is why many states have added a right to a jury trial in civil cases to their state constitutions. jgwlaw 04:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have mentioned this at the time, but I was fairly new, and didn't think of it: I've changed the redirect of Trial by jury to direct to the near-identical Trial by Jury - the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, under the principle that a change in capitalisation shouldn't send you to wildly differing places, with, of course, a disambiguator at the top of the opera. Is it agreed that this is correct? Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this section and started it by briefly mentioning the situation in Russia. It seems to me it would be a valuable resource to have a definitive list of countries that currently have jury trials. There should really also be a list of countries that have introduced and then abandoned jury trial at one time or another.

In Poland there's a jury system like in France. For example in murder case there are 2 professional judges and 3 jurors. I suggest that will be included in the article.

1. Corrected spelling error ('proffesional' > 'professional')
2. Do you have any sources of this information? Do you live in Poland?

Jake95_(talk!) 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes I live in Poland. The juros are elected by the town councils in secrtet elections. However the social factor in criminal and family cases are decresed by bill that passed this year.--Vaultsuit 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that a verdict is a finding of fact. That is incorect. It is a mixed finding of law and fact. Thus the verdict is Guilty or Not Guilty. The jury does not state, the person did X, Y and Z, leaving the question of guilt or inocence up to the judge. If they did that would be a pure finding of fact. 70.150.94.194 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Consider the question of fact article. "In law, a question of fact (also known as a point of fact) is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles."

In the US the jury is instructed on all the elements and questions of law. If questions of law arise later, the judge offers additional instruction. The verdict is thus not a "mixed finding" in the US. Are we discussing US law? If not, please amend the article to correct it and include the jurisdictions that you are discussing. If you are certain that this is the case in the US, please correct that as well. Raggz 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a brief introductory para as the article previously launched into things without explaining what a jury trial was. Fat Red 05:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence launches right in without even mentioning the context. One has to assume there is a missing introduction along the lines of "In Roman times..."? I'm not remotely qualified to write this, but hopefully someone will? Maxplanar (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning here, I find it's been updated, but now we meet the word dikaste without an immediate explanation of what it means. This article is confusing and poorly written as yet. Maxplanar (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case Blanton v. North Las Vegas had its own subheading under the United States heading. I deleted it since: 1) there is no reference to the relevance of this case, and 2) it is far too specific, discussing a minor common law rule for the right to a jury in a criminal trial, that need not be mentioned in a general article about jury trials. If someone thinks this case should stay in, I guess there just needs to be more clarification over it's importance. CougRoyalty (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a section-stub marker on the Canada section; I've removed it and put in a summary of the linked-to article. Can a Canadian please give it a san-check? Thanks! Rosuav (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In which jurisdictions is a jury member allowed to abstain from voting?
   • In Scottish law: yes Response to Consultation on “The Modern Scottish Jury in Criminal Trials”, pg. 4
   • In the North Carolina district court: no 213 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2000), §4
   • any more info?
2. Where abstention is allowed, how does this affect the calculation of any required majority or unanimous votes?
   • any info?

jnestorius^(talk) 04:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1039.html

"26. On the other hand, as the Commissioner's interim report pointed out, jury trial is not seen as essential in other parts of the world, nor under Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. Mr Crow also fairly makes the points that the great majority of criminal offences are tried without a jury, and that it is hard to point to a principled basis for drawing a clear line. (For those interested, the Wikipedia entry on jury trial has a surprisingly full, comparative treatment of the issue. The "positive belief" about jury trial in the US, is contrasted with sentiment in other countries in which it is considered "bizarre and risky" for issues of liberty to be entrusted to untrained laymen.)" 20th May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.131.2.146 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's really a ton of overlap between jury trial and jury. Jury is really about the juries used in jury trials (it doesn't really cover grand juries), and I think they should be merged. II | (t - c) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possibly, but if so the merge should go the other direction from what is currently suggested in the templates. To be explicit, merge jury trial into jury, not jury into jury trial. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to go that way too, although I don't see why it's a big deal either way. II | (t - c) 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just kind of incongruous to have an article about the specific term when there's no article about the general one. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree because (a) much more can be added to this section (b) if someone wanta to know about a jury trial cross references can lead them there (c) I am working on grand jury subject (d) and, a combined topic would be large and difficult for a layman to get through. Books are written about jury trials and this is a subject separate from what a jury is in the same sense that other subjects in common law are treated differently such as a jury trial and a judge trial. (Jurycom (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know that they should be merged so much as re-evaluated and modified. A jury trial should be explained for what it is followed by the way it is implemented or allowed in various countries/regions. It should detail more of the specifics - outcomes and nuances and such - and be a much longer article than the article detailing a jury specific.
Meanwhile, the jury article should explain what a jury consists of in the various countries (peers, magistrates, judges, etc). I really don't see how that should wind up being very long.
--K10wnsta (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are soo many countries which have jury system.we need a simple diagrammatic representation.can anyone create a map. 59.95.129.168 (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]