why is it that when there is a jury at a trial it is always a 98% white.?
437139
That used to be the case but not anymore.\n\nSome years ago there was a very detailed and thorough research project conducted called 'Getting Away With Murder' and it looked at how different people faired in court.  It found that if an identical crime were committed in identical circumstances that some people received for more lenient treatment in the judicial process.\n\nThese are the summary findings...\n\nBlacks faired worse then whites\nMen faired worse than women\nThe poorer you were the worse it was\nThe less educated you were the worse it was\n25 to 40 year olds got the worst treatment, the elderly got the best\nUgly people faired worse then attractive people.\n\nA lot of it comes down to stereotyping.  Imagine a 25 year old black male, not good looking, uneducated and poor against an attractive 18 year old female from a well off family and with a good education.  The black man is going to get a much stiffer punishment than the white female even if the crimes are identical.\n\nHowever... In recent years things have changed and those in the judiciary are aware of racial accusations being leveled against them.  Asians are likely to receive the lightest sentence whilst whites and blacks can expect about the same.\n\nAll the other aspects remain unchanged so if you want a crime committing get an attractive, educated, wealthy, young Asian lady to do it for you.\n\nAs for the jury, it has to be representative of the community as a whole and if it isn't then the prosecution or defence will object.
780265
The real answer is that if a jury trial is not asked for within a specified time limit, it is waived.  They ask before they know if they want one or not to preserve their client's right to one.
376644
The system functions to maintain the status quo. Wealthy white males protect their station in drafting, enacting, and enforcing their ideology. Mainly, that wealthy, white males are the only ones capable and intellegent enough to draft, enact and enforce laws. Read the Reimen book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. If you are really interested in how the system works.\n\nIn prior years, I would have said that there is no consistency in the american judicial system; that, infact, it was the most arbitrary and capricious system ever developed. Now, with manditory minimum sentencing and all of the well intended groups getting their special laws and penalties for newly rewritten laws to set out with specificity their group, draconian sentencing seems to be a consistency in the law. \n\nYet, prosecutors still hide exculpatory evidence and misrepresent the facts to the jurors to ensure victory and reelection or to move to the next political arena. Through the unfortunate situation of mostly poor people getting arrested, the system grind on...Its like this: The case is tried by the Judge which is an elected position (popularity contest) and he/she acts under color of authority for the State; the Prosecutor, also an elected position is also a State agent; if the person arrested is poor that person will be represented by a public defender....you guessed it a State appointed attorney. The legal process is suppose to be a rigorous testing of the facts and an adversarial process. NOW, you tell if the state hears the case (judge) and it is prosecuted by the state (prosecutor) and the defendant is represented by the state (State PD), I ask you where is the adversarial process. I would say that the consistency of law is that it does not apply (normally) to wealthy white males.
907791
The date for such trials is set months ago.\nThe judges have to give appropriate time to both teams of lawers.\nThe judges have to consider holidays etc.\nthe judges have to account for the time they will need to write the verdict.\nHence it is possible that government can run the trial in such a way and in such a timely manner that the verdict concides with a particular event.
876743
When our good white paper is prepared it is bleached.This removes all colour from it or chemically the present oxygen.But after a long period of time after this paper is exposed to air,the oxygen molecules are regained and the old colour comes back.\n\nThis is because generally CaOCl2 (bleaching powder) or SO2 is used.When a stronger bleacher is used the regaining of colour wont happen.
888029
Another reason they settle is so that they are assured of the outcome and not surprised by a jury verdict , juries can be hard to read, and there is peace of mind in negotiating something and knowing the outcome instead of waiting on pins and needles for a jury to come in.
334070
Because we all have a Constitutional right to be tried by a jury of our peers.  We are so used to this that we often take it for granted.  Imagine if there were no juries, and one judge could decide whether or not someone was guilty of murder?  Imagine if that one judge was corrupt or prejudiced?  We are all very lucky that we can be tried by our peers, and not be put in jail simply because one man thinks we should.  In order to enjoy all the privileges of democracy we all have a civic duty to vote and to sit on juries.
161394
Of course it played a factor. Race permeates our society, and is particularly noticeable when it comes to criminal trials. One of the main factors was how different is the experience with police in the black vs. white cultural history. Many blacks have experienced what they believe to be police misconduct (remember the history of lynchings and kangaroo courts in the 20s and 30s), and thus find it easy to believe that OJ was framed. Whites tend to see the police as honest and credible, and therefore don't question the evidence.\nIf you don't trust the police & the D.A.'s office to honestly collect, analyze, and present evidence, then it's easy to vote "not guilty." If you cannot believe the police would fake evidence, then the "not guilty" decision seems to be an outrage.
886748
I've never heard anyone say that the death penalty was racist; I've heard and I agree that there APPEAR to be undertones of racism in its application when more Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately on death row for the same offenses that Whites often get 25-to-Life Imprisonment or Life Imprisonment terms for.  I can't make a generalization or blanket statement but it's most curious how unforgiving White juries are toward Blacks and Latinos (some who are also mentally deficient), and the harshness with which they're judged and sentenced, many times with the flimisiest possible evidence.\n\nAnd when minority members have their convictions overturned by higher courts, the circumstances too often involve exculpatory evidence that was hidden by overzealous prosecutors and/or police officers who deemed the accused guilty and chose to see to it that he/she be condemend.  Or eye-witnesses that were not notified or called upon to testify for the suspect and the DA and/or the police never made this known to the defense team.   Or, now with DNA evidence, some prosecutors STILL fight to have the new exculpatory evidence barred from being presented to the courts!  Gee, I wonder why...?
344273
It's because of racism.  White Americans used to think that if you had any "colored" blood then you were contaminated and impure.  They had terms like octoroon, which meant that you had one-eighth part "colored" blood.  That means that one of your great-grandparents were "colored" so you were "colored".  It would effect your legal rights, so if you were "colored" then you had to ride on different train cars, and all that other horrible stuff.  Sadly a lot of people still discriminate based on the color of our skin.
807891
A criminal trial is not about evidence, it is all about what the jury believes. A person with a charismatic persona can literally get away with murder.
725444
Most litigator attorneys prefer juries because they can be influenced by appeals to emotion, and by subtle argument.\n\nIn the USA jury trials are guaranteed by the Constitution. In England they exist in civil trials only for libel actions, and in criminal trials conviction may be by majority, not unanimous, vote in many or most cases.\n\nBut it is argued in Britain that many matters -- especially white collar crimes, and more specifically financial fraud cases -- are too complex for juries and numerous high profile British prosecutions have indeed collapsed. \n\nIn the USA that is not generally the case, and as you know there were convictions in the Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Martha Stewart and hundreds of other prosecutions.\n\nThe whole point of juries was to bring local knowledge and local standards to bear in the resolution of cases. The role of the jury narrowed later to simple fact-finding based on arcane trial procedural rules. In the UK, which has no written constitution other than those rules imposed by EU and European Convention on Human Rights law, there was recently enacted a law that permits retrial of acquitted defendants in certain "serious" cases. (Double jeopardy exists in the USA too sometimes, but only when the second trial is by a different sovereign, usually by the federal government after a state court acquittal.)\n\nThere is a good deal of cynicism about juries: the OJ Simpson trial is an example. Juries rarely understand the concept of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and the number of wrongful convictions -- now proven by DNA, but even earlier researched and written about (in England) by Bob Woffinden -- is sad testimony to the fallibility of juries and the cynicism of prosecutors.\n\nIt goes back to the declaration of Justice Olliver Wendell Holmes to Learned Hand about his job not being to "do justice" but to play the game by the rules: http://snurl.com/learned
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
572991
Is this the standard number of jurors (12) throughout the US? If so it's illogical - better odd numbers (11,13) then even to get a verdict.
319760
if its somebody elses' truth does it apply to you??? its mostly circumstantial and relative. but i guess there is always the truth that there must be black to be white, up to be down, here to be there, unless your nowhere.
1021510
Some lawyers hold "mock trials" and hire "mock jurors" to pretest a trial to see how the case may go. Surprisingly, a lot of the "real" trials and "real" jurors reach the same verdict. That way,  the lawyers know how to change their tactics to get the outcome to go their way.
3728
No one but a juror may be in the jury deliberation room. This is why it is so important that the judge determine what evidence is admissible before the trial begins. If a juror believes other jurors are considering irrelevant evidence, the juror should inform the judge, who would instruct them of their consitutional responsibility and so forth. If a judge believes a jury did not consider the evidence properly, he/she can vacate the verdict, which is very rarely done, for obvious reasons.