Not all states require a jury of 12 for all crimes. And although 12-member juries are required for federal crimes, judges in district courts may allow a jury of 11 people to return a verdict if it has found it necessary to excuse a juror after the start of deliberations (Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., rule 23 (b) (2019)).
Full Answer
Instead, we remove those jurors whom we don't like. Whoever is left over, sits on the jury. You see, each attorney gets to remove a certain number of jurors. I can remove three jurors for any reason. If I choose to remove any three jurors, I simply whip out my "Remove this juror" card and away they go, back to the jury room.
· For example, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state, “After the jury has retired to deliberate, the court may permit a jury of 11 persons to return a verdict, even without a stipulation by the parties, if the court finds good cause to …
· And although 12-member juries are required for federal crimes, judges in district courts may allow a jury of 11 people to return a verdict if it has found it necessary to excuse a juror after the start of deliberations (Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., rule 23 (b) (2019)). When a Mistrial is Required After Juror Removal
· In fact, according to the California Judge’s Benchguide, a Torrance Judge may may excuse a prospective juror from jury service on the ground of undue hardship for any of the following reasons: 1. No transportation. The prospective juror has no reasonably available means of public or private transportation to the court. 2. Excessive distance.
In exceptional circumstances, as where a jury suffers depletions during trial and deliberation that are greater than can reasonably be expected, the parties may agree to be bound by a verdict rendered by fewer than six jurors.
A peremptory challenge results in the exclusion of a potential juror without the need for any reason or explanation - unless the opposing party presents a prima facie argument that this challenge was used to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. See Batson challenge.
peremptory - Each side in a case has a certain number of challenges that can be used without giving a reason. These are called "peremptory" challenges. Each side may ask the judge to excuse particular jurors.
There is no requirement that jurors must come to a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of either Guilty or Not Guilty, this is known as a hung jury. When further deliberation clearly will be unproductive, the judge will declare a mistrial.
A challenge for cause may be made for any reason that the attorney feels would make the individual unable to judge without bias. For example: Alexander is facing trial for charges of armed robbery, fleeing from the police, and assault on a police officer. Potential juror number 23 is a retired police officer.
A peremptory challenge permits a party to remove a prospective juror without giving a reason (e.g., disqualification, implied bias or actual bias) for the removal. During jury selection, each side will challenge potential jurors that the party views as most likely to disagree with their factual and legal theories.
Choose 3 answers. What is the process of interviewing prospective jurors and either approving of or challenging a person's impartiality toward service on a particular jury? When a party wishes to excuse a potential juror without giving a reason, the party may exercise a: peremptory challenge.
A challenge that aims to disqualify a potential juror for some stated reason. Typical reasons include bias, prejudice, or prior knowledge that would prevent impartial evaluation of the evidence presented in court. ACADEMIC TOPICS. trial process/advocacy. courts.
When there are insufficient jurors voting one way or the other to deliver either a guilty or not guilty verdict, the jury is known as a “hung jury” or it might be said that jurors are “deadlocked”.
No, a judge cannot overturn a hung jury and the judge can only overrule a conviction if they think it is 'unsafe'. Is a hung jury good or bad?
A Florida jury weighed charges against George Zimmerman for more than 16 hours before acquitting him in 2013 of counts including second-degree murder for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin. It took about 35 hours over nine days for jurors in California to acquit the actor Robert Blake in 2005 of murdering his wife.
There are usually two things that can happen when there is a hung jury: the judge can ask the jury to reconsider and hope that more time might lead some jurors to change their minds, or the judge can declare a mistrial. A mistrial is usually the more serious and time-consuming outcome.
I ask this question because if one of the jurors did know the attorney or the litigants, it might cause them to lean in favor of that person.
You don't often hear lawyers talk about this. If you're left on the jury panel after other jurors have been removed, you will be part of the jury that sits in judgment to decide this case.
If I get my adversary's consent, then together we can excuse this potential juror and have him return to the jury room to wait for the next case.
The words"jury selection" give you the sense that lawyers go into a room and actually choose jurors we want on the jury.
When you arrive for jury duty, you'll be asked to fill out a questionnaire.
When you are called for jury duty, you get the dreaded summons in the mail commanding you to appear in court on a certain date, at a certain time. Once you check in, you're told to hurry up and wait in a big room commonly known as the jury room .
The attorney will open a door on the drum and drop in all those cards with your names on them.
The states vary in the number of jurors required for a jury, ranging from six to 23. If too many potential jurors have been eliminated after the use of challenges, the judge can either summon additional potential jurors or declare a mistrial.
Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case . The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren't allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.
Challenges for Cause. Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available.
After they have completed questioning, the lawyers begin removing potential jurors from the venire by making challenges for cause and peremptory challenges.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship.
Actual Bias. Actual bias arises when potential jurors admit that they wouldn't be able to be impartial. For example, a juror who states that she would never vote for a guilty verdict in any case because her religious beliefs prevent her from sitting in judgment of another would be excused for cause. Implied Bias.
A juror’s unwillingness or inability to deliberate fairly and impartially and to follow court instructions can wreak havoc on a trial at the last minute. Parties can and should consider asking the court to excuse a problematic juror in such circumstances.
The Third Circuit’s decision in Kemp provides a useful illustration of the type of limited questioning courts and parties should consider. There, faced with concerns that one of the jurors was refusing to deliberate impartially, the court interviewed each juror individually and asked the following three questions in camera:
Similarly, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the court may excuse a juror for “good cause” during deliberations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 47 (c). While neither rule explicitly defines “good cause,” courts have held that the term includes “a variety of problems that may arise with respect to the jury, including sickness, family emergency, ...
At this late stage, while it may still be possible to excuse a juror, the court and the parties must tread carefully to avoid interfering with the integrity of deliberations, which could result in a mistrial. Different court rules may specify when and how jurors can be removed once deliberations have already begun.
Different court rules may specify when and how jurors can be removed once deliberations have already begun. For example, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state, “After the jury has retired to deliberate, the court may permit a jury of 11 persons to return a verdict, even without a stipulation by the parties, if the court finds good cause to excuse a juror.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 23 (b) (3). Similarly, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the court may excuse a juror for “good cause” during deliberations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 47 (c). While neither rule explicitly defines “good cause,” courts have held that the term includes “a variety of problems that may arise with respect to the jury, including sickness, family emergency, or misconduct,” U.S. v. Vartanian, 476 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2007), and have dismissed jurors during deliberations for a number of different reasons. See, e.g., id. (dishonesty toward the court); U.S. v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (refusal to deliberate and indicia of bias); Robinson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 86 F. App’x 73 (6th Cir. 2004) (mental health concerns); United States v. Wetselaar, 2017 WL 2405370 (D. Nev. 2017) (refusal to deliberate). Accordingly, courts have some freedom in determining what constitutes “good cause” to excuse a juror during deliberations.
And although 12-member juries are required for federal crimes, judges in district courts may allow a jury of 11 people to return a verdict if it has found it necessary to excuse a juror after the start of deliberations (Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., rule 23 (b) (2019)).
Jurors could be removed if they don’t follow important instructions from the judge, such as not using cell phones during trial proceedings, avoiding media coverage of the case, or not bringing outside information into the jury room.
The process of selecting a jury (known as voir dire) is meant to weed out potential jurors who can’t or won’t be fair. But even after members of the jury are selected and the trial has started, the judges may decide that it’s necessary to remove a juror because that person is not qualified or able to continue serving. What happens next depends on several factors, including the availability of alternate jurors, the stage of the trial, and the jurisdiction (which federal or state court) where the trial is taking place.
At any point after a criminal trial starts, a judge must remove any juror when it becomes clear that the person is disqualified for any of the “for cause” reasons for disqualifying potential jurors before trial, including: refusal or inability to follow the law.
After removing a juror, a judge will move ahead in one of three ways: by replacing the juror, continuing the trial with a smaller jury, or declaring a mistrial.
Judges have considerable leeway (“discretion,” in legal jargon) when removing jurors. That means circumstances or conduct that lead to disqualification in one court may not have that result in another court, and an appellate court will ordinarily defer to the judge’s decision. At the same time, however, there must be factual evidence supporting that decision, as well as a valid legal reason that serves the purpose of preserving the integrity of the judicial process. The reason must be personal and specific to the individual juror being dismissed; it shouldn’t have anything to do with the issues in the case.
After a trial has started, a judge may dismiss a juror who’s disqualified or unable to continue serving on the jury. Learn about the valid reasons and procedure for removing and replacing jurors, and what happens when no alternates are available. One of the cornerstones of the U.S. criminal justice system is the constitutional right ...
Steps in a Trial 1 In civil cases, especially in courts of limited jurisdiction, the standard size in many jurisdictions is becoming six, which can be increased by stipulation of both parties. 2 In misdemeanor cases there are sometimes fewer than twelve jurors, though in serious criminal cases twelve jurors are generally required. 3 The old requirement that juries be unanimous is also changing. In misdemeanor and civil cases particularly, states often provide for verdicts based on the agreement of three-fourths or five-sixths of the jurors.
In many jurisdictions, jury selection begins with the court clerk's calling twelve people on the jury list and asking them to take a place in the jury box. The judge usually makes a brief statement explaining what kind of case is to be tried and inquiring whether there is any reason the potential jurors cannot serve.
Alternate jurors are selected in some cases to take the place of jurors who may become ill during the trial. Alternate jurors hear the evidence just as the other jurors do, but they don’t participate in the deliberations unless they replace an original juror.
Once impaneled, the jurors’ role is to listen to the evidence conscientiously and not draw premature conclusions. They are instructed by the judge not to discuss the case with outsiders or each other (until deliberations). They generally do not have the right to ask questions of witnesses, but some judges permit jurors to submit written questions for the judge and lawyers to consider. (The lawyers have a right to object to these questions, just as they do to questions posed by lawyers during the trial.) If appropriate, the questions may be asked.
Peremptory challenges are limited to a certain number determined by the kind of lawsuit being tried. They can’t be used to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. When both parties have agreed upon a jury, the jurors are sworn in to try the case by the court clerk. Those not selected are excused.
In civil cases, especially in courts of limited jurisdiction, the standard size in many jurisdictions is becoming six, which can be increased by stipulation of both parties.
Each request will be considered by the judge and may or may not be allowed. In addition to challenges for cause, each lawyer has a specific number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential juror without stating a cause.
The first step in a trial is to select from the panel the number of jurors required to try the case. As discussed earlier, in a civil case there are usually eight jurors seated, with six deliberating and the others selected as alternates. In criminal cases, there are usually 14 jurors selected so that alternates are available. Jurors may be selected by drawing names or numbers from a box, or they may be randomly selected by computer. If you are called as a prospective juror you are required to truthfully answer all questions regarding your qualifications to serve as a juror in the case. Each of the lawyers or participants in the case has been provided with a jury list, which contains information regarding each juror's name, address and occupation.
The grand jury considers whether there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against a person The standard before the grand jury is not the same as the standard before the criminal trial jury and a full blown trial is not conducted before the grand jury.
In a civil matter, in order for a plaintiff to win a case, it is only necessary for the plaintiff to prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence or in some cases by clear and convincing evidence. In a criminal matter, the defendant has a right to a trial by jury The defendant is also constitutionally entitled to be presumed innocent ...
Having lawyers approach the bench avoids the inconvenience of sending the jury from the courtroom. However, if the discussion is going to be lengthy most judges will excuse the jury. The jury must decide a case on facts alone, thus it is the policy to discuss questions of law and procedure out of the jury's hearing to avoid confusion. Jurors should not attempt to draw any conclusions about what has been said out of their hearing.
After the charge is presented, the grand jury will hear testimony and review the evidence the state has gathered in support of its charges. The grand jury has the power to compel witnesses to attend its hearings; the accused and any witness on behalf of the accused generally do not testify.
The entire group summoned for service by the Assignment Judge is called the jury panel. The Jury Management Office within each county works with the trial judges and criminal and civil division managers to schedule a sufficient number of jurors for each day's anticipated trials. The Jury Management Office communicates with judges or their staff throughout the day so that jurors are available when needed and so that members of the jury panel may be dismissed for the day once all trial needs are met.
Each juror should pay close attention to the witness who is testifying, both to hear what the witness says and to watch the witness's manner and actions. In evaluating a witness's testimony a juror may consider the witness's credibility and ultimately decide how much weight the testimony deserves.
Jurors should give close attention to the testimony. They are sworn to disregard their prejudices and follow the court’s instructions. They must render a verdict according to their best judgment.
The charge of a judge to a jury in a United States District Court frequently is much more than a statement of the rules of law. Sometimes it may contain a summary of the facts or some of the facts.
After the jurors return their verdict and are dismissed by the judge, they are free to go about their normal affairs, although in some districts jurors must check with jury office personnel to see if their service is concluded. They are under no obligation to speak to any person about the case and may refuse all requests for interviews or comments. Nevertheless, the court may enter an order in a specific case that during any such interview, jurors may not give any information with respect to the vote of any other juror.
In both civil and criminal cases, it is the jury’s duty to decide the facts in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the judge’s charge to the jury. The decision is made on the evidence introduced, and the jury’s decision on the facts is usually final.
After presentation of the evidence is completed, the lawyers have the opportunity to discuss the evidence in their closing arguments. This helps the jurors recall testimony that might have slipped their memory.
The person charged with a violation of the law is the defendant. The charge against the defendant may be brought in two ways. One way is by means of an indictment; the other is by an information.
To begin a jury trial, a panel of prospective jurors is called into the courtroom. This panel will include a number of persons from whom a jury will be selected to try the case. In criminal trials, alternate jurors may be chosen to take the place of jurors who become ill during the trial.
Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's peremptory challenges of African-American prospective jurors based on their race violated the prospective jurors' Equal Protection rights under the Constitution. ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).) The Court reasoned that challenging a juror based on his or her race, because the attorney believes the juror could not be impartial to a defendant of the same race, assumes that people of a certain race cannot be unbiased. This assumption violated the challenged jurors' Equal Protection rights.
Each attorney has an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges which are, as the term suggests, based on a specified reason or "cause" to challenge the prospective juror. A prospective juror may be challenged for cause because of: 1 exposure to pretrial publicity about the case, 2 a connection with a party, an attorney, the judge, or a witness in the case 3 experience as a victim of a crime that is similar to that being tried 4 a religious prohibition on imposing a sentence or otherwise fulfilling his or her role, or 5 gender, race, or other bias.
The answers help weed out people who truly cannot serve as jurors due to physical, language, or irresolvable family or other conflicts. Then, the judge calls smaller groups of prospective jurors to the jury box for individual questioning by the attorneys (and often by the judge, too).
After questioning prospective jurors, each side's attorney may challenge certain jurors using two types of challenges: "for cause" and "peremptory.".
This questioning is called "voir dire" (v war deer), which comes from an Old French term for "to speak the truth."
A prospective juror may be challenged for cause because of: exposure to pretrial publicity about the case, a connection with a party, an attorney, the judge, or a witness in the case. experience as a victim of a crime that is similar to that being tried.
In federal criminal trials, the number of peremptory challenges allowed is ten for the defendant and six for the prosecution in a felony case, 20 for each side in a death penalty case, and three for each side in a misdemeanor case (Fed. R. Crim. P. 24.) (In a civil case, federal rules allow each side three peremptory challenges. (28 U.S.C. § 1870.))