Do Jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts in a case?
94440
They sure do.When the U.S. Constitution recognizes the right to the trial by jury, it provides the common law trial by jury. This applies to both criminal law and to civil law suits "according to the rules of the common law" as specified by the Seventh Amendment.
738282
It often boils down to who has the most knowledgeable and convincing representative - the prosecution or the defense lawyer. \n\nA really good defense lawyer can really muddle the facts to give the jury plenty of reasonable doubt.\n\nOn the other hand, a really good prosecutor can make insignificant details add up to the proverbial smoking gun.\n\nAnd then there's all the prejudices and extra baggage the jurors themselves bring to the table even before the opening statements are made.
933903
It can make a big difference how and when a jury hears something.
810998
NO! Are you kidding? A judge cannot be running around in fear that his decisions might be the basis for a criminal charge.  Who would ever be a judge then?\nJudges are required to make decisions based upon the evidence that comes before them, the law, and their wisdom and common sense.  That's why they're judges.   There are times when judges can be prosecuted -- if they take bribes or commit other criminal acts, for example.  But what you're asking is, essentially, to charge judges with crimes if they make rulings that are (eventually) determined to be incorrect that would have let in exculpatory evidence.  Then, in fear of their own lives or freedom, every judge would let in every piece of evidence proffered by a defense attorney, and capital cases would become absolute circuses.\n\nThe reason we have judicial gatekeepers to determine relevance and other rules of evidence is to ensure that the jurors hear only proper evidence--that their minds aren't tainted by prejudicial evidence, unreliable evidence, or red herring evidence introduced solely to confuse or inflame the jurors.  If you're so concerned about that, then you should allow BOTH sides to introduce whatever evidence they want.  That could include information about the defendant's predilections, his character, some other acts, unreliable hearsay evidence, junk science, and gruesome details about the death that would just enrage the jurors to convict.
755419
I would listen to both the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's story. I would listen to how they both are talking, if they are stuttering a lot that a negative for me also if they are looking me dead in my eye also if they have all their papers(Records, Evidence, Etc.).\nOf course I would make sure each of there stories any possible sense at all. \nI would base my decision on what is right and correct. Also what I'm allowed to do. Also I would base my decisions on each persons Constitutional rights. If one of the people have a problem with my decision thats there problem. Also I would base my decisions on life lessons and what the her/she needs to learn.
284652
Yes, they don't mean a literal hearing. a hearing means that the jury and judge hear your side and their side and then they make a decision. the prosecutor and defendant (people who "Go to court" don't have to hear anything.\n\nI don't think there are many deaf judges and jury, but if there were, there would be people translating into sign language.
324818
I don't know the answer to your question but this article might help you:\n\nhttp://www.law.stanford.edu/library/wlhbp/articles/juror.htm
1021177
Trial by a jury of your peers is still the best justice system in the world, and we should definitely keep it.  Any system of laws is really just a tool.  It's a means to an end, and that end is Justice.  Now I think everyone would agree that Justice is an Ideal... it's a perfect concept, in theory.  But being humans, we are incapible of creating anything perfectly.  Therefore, the tool we have created as the means to reach that perfect ideal of Justice will, by necessity, be flawed.  So, our legal system will never be perfect, and consequently injustices will always come out of it from time to time.  But over the many years since it's inception, we continue to fine tune our legal system, with new legislation, with the appealate court process, with new amendements to the constitution, etc.  The law is constantly changing because, like technology, morality, and every other aspect of human culture, the law is a work in progress.  It will never be perfect, because we are never perfect.  But the trial system the best system humanity has ever devised to pursue the ideal of Justice.\n\n     But the trial by jury is the last line of defense between the people of our great nation remaining free, and the people of our once-great nation falling into a facist state.  It's that right to a trial by a jury of our peers that protects us from unjust laws, from the power which we vote to hand over to our elected public servants corrupting them and allowing them to turn us into the servants, instead.  The jury of your peers is what stands between the people and tyranny.\n\n    People in this country (unlike many others) are still innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  That "reasonable doubt" standard is very high.  We aren't innocent until it appears we're "probably" guilty, or even "more likely than not guilty."  That jury has to be pretty damn sure we're guilty, and they have to agree on it.  Sometimes in criminal trials someone's very life is on the line.  If it's your life, you have the right to cross-examine witness brought against you.  You have the right to question evidence brought against you.  You have the right to bring witnesses on your behalf, and to bring evidence of your innocence.  In other words, you have the right to plead your case and to try to convince that jury that you didn't do it.  \n\n     Never, ever, let anyone make you believe for a second that this great Republic of ours could pursue our ideal of Justice without the trial system.
224431
Yes, they are,  They would normally be transferred to the juvenile division of the criminal court system.  All defendant individuals within the criminal system have the right of a jury trial.  Whether this is the best solution or not is a different matter.
132816
If judges are allowed to alter jury's determinations then there is no need for the jury. Thejury Trail system is based on certain strong fundamentals so if you have a jury trial system then you must respect the Jury's determinations. there are countries which do not practice the Jury trail system, the judges alone make the decisions. In simple words if you are playing a game then you have to follow the rules of the game.
148252
Ive never been on jury duty but from what i've heard it involves total concentration on the case presented before you. That means you are away from family, friends, tv, radio, even religion (your bible)...basically anything from the outside world that can influence your decision. Your role is to hear all the evidence brought by both sides of the law and give a totally unbiased opinion. Being a sequestered juror is a very important thing! It will probably be very hard at first, but hopefully by the end u will feel fulfilled as a citizen. Think about it this way, if your life/death hung on jurors, wouldn't you want them to care and thier decision to be fair? Good luck!
797668
in some states a jury can have less than twelve members\nmany people are simply happy enough to collaborate with the authorities to feel important that they will sit on juries and help convict people on very questionable evidence\nit happens all the time
706938
I used to be all for it until I started playing yahoo answers.  I don't think it is possible for Americans to be jurors without preconceived notions. Most of the posters in this sight could not have been a juror in the OJ case. They claimed they watched every minute, but didn't care that every piece of evidence was not credible according to the leading forensic scientist in the world.
927259
It basically means that a majority of the Grand Jurors believed that the Prosecutor showed, by a preponderance of the evidence,  that a crime was committed and a certain individual, and/or individuals, committed it.  That's it.  It's then up to the trial judge or jury to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a particular person or persons committed the aforesaid crime.\nThe Prosecutor doesn't hold the case over - the Grand Jury does.  The Prosecutor simply presents it and the jurors make the decision.
398394
In a democracy, a trial by jury is important in that the accused must be found innocent or guilty of the charge by twelve people like himself/herself - rather than one judge. It's intent is to provide a greater justice for the accused.   Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn"t--but that is its intent..  In civil court (such as lawsuits in car accidents, etc) sometimes there are fewer than 12 jurors.
1164404
Don't really know, but the judicial system, even if they are, is set up to watch out for this.  The judge's only power is to interpret law and therefore can only make a ruling without a jury when there is only legal questions presented.  Any issues of fact must be determined by a jury, and any action the judge takes outside of his legal duty can be brought up on appeal, such as if he decides there are no issues of fact and does a summary judgment.
836582
If there is enough evidence, the jury can already made a decision declaring the accused as guilt.\n\nBarring illegals from  work and school is not violative of the constitution because the state has the right to regulate immigration as a valid exercise of police power.\n\nThe state has the right to abolish abortion if it deems that it is against morals, public policy and the laws.