The issues in each court case fall into one of two categories: Questions of fact are questions that deal with what actually happened in the case. For instance, suppose the plaintiff in a personal injury casewas walking through a crosswalk one day when the defendant hit her with his car.
For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of up to citizens. In such large juries, the unanimity rule would be unrealistic, and verdicts were reached by majority. Juries were appointed by lot.
Jurists cast a ceramic disk with an axle in its middle: Thus the way they voted was kept secret because the jurists would hold their disk by the axle by thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether its axle was hollow or solid.
Since Periclean times, jurists were compensated for their sitting in court, with the amount of one day's wages. The institution of trial by jury was ritually depicted by Aeschylus in the Eumenidesthe third and final play of his Oresteia trilogy.
In the play, the innovation is brought about by the goddess Athenawho summons twelve citizens to sit as jury. The god Apollo takes part in the trial as the advocate for the defendant Orestes and the Furies as prosecutors for the slain Clytemnestra.
In the event the jury is split six to sixand Athena dictates that in such a case, the verdict should henceforth be for acquittal Rome[ edit ] From the beginning of the republic and in the majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury, the Roman judges being civilian, lay and not professional.
Capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Roman trials. High government officials and their relatives were barred from acting as judices, due to conflicts of interest.
Those previously found guilty of serious crimes felonies were also barred as were gladiators for hire, who likely were hired to resolve disputes through trial by combat. The law was as follows: An draft on criminal procedure produced by the Prussian Ministry of Justice proposed to abolish the jury and replace it with the mixed system, causing a significant political debate.
England and Wales[ edit ] Main article: They had no professional lawyers, but many of their farmer-warriors, like Njalthe truth-teller, were learned in folk custom and in its intricate judicial procedure. A Danish town in England often had, as its main officers, twelve hereditary 'law men.
These juries differed from the modern sort by being self-informing; instead of getting information through a trial, the jurors were required to investigate the case themselves.
Jury system for Parsi Matrimonial dispute cases is a mix of Panchayat system and Jury system found in US etc. countries. The law which governs this is `The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, ` as amended in The jury found no place in the Indian Constitution, and it . overview of criminal law and procedure in Canada particularly, the jury system, by Canada-US cross border defence lawyer-attorney. Law and Order - Trial by Jury could have been as successful as the other shows in the Law and Order stable, but it seems that NBC were not prepared to give it the time to succeed.
Henry II set up a system to resolve land disputes using juries. A jury of twelve free men were assigned to arbitrate in these disputes. As with the Saxon system, these men were charged with uncovering the facts of the case on their own rather than listening to arguments in court. Henry II also introduced what is now known as the " grand jury " through his Assize of Clarendon.
Under the assize, a jury of free men was charged with reporting any crimes that they knew of in their hundred to a "justice in eyre", a judge who moved between hundreds on a circuit.
A criminal accused by this jury was given a trial by ordeal.
The Church banned participation of clergy in trial by ordeal in Without the legitimacy of religion, trial by ordeal collapsed. The juries under the assizes began deciding guilt as well as providing accusations.
The same year, trial by jury became an explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta. Article 39 of the Magna Carta read: Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae.
The law of the land was the consuetudinary lawbased on the customs and consent of John's subjects, and since they did not have Parliament in those times, this meant that neither the king nor the barons could make a law without the consent of the people.
According to some sources, in the time of Edward III, by the law of the land had been substituted by due process of law, which in those times was a trial by twelve peers.
The Magna Carta of  further secured trial by jury by stating that For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood.
In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.
Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence. To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these.
If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them.The official home page of the New York State Unified Court System.
We hear more than three million cases a year involving almost every type of endeavor. We hear family matters, personal injury claims, commercial disputes, trust and estates issues, criminal cases, and landlord-tenant cases.
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. This consistent, predictable system also helps us to have confidence in the rulings of the judge and jury.
In federal court, the jury decides the verdict. It’s the judge’s job to act as referee, ruling on issues of law before and during the trial. Jury service is a way for U.S. citizens to participate in the judicial process. Learn more.
In the federal system of the United States, and in about half of the state systems, charges are brought not by the public prosecutor but by the grand jury, a group of 12 to 23 citizens selected by lot.
DEFINITION OF THE JURY SYSTEM. The jury system consists of twelve people who sit in criminal and civil events to make decisions on matters of facts. In England there is an approximate year history of the jury system. When the jury system was developed in England those times were called the dark ages and the jury were then required to investigate cases themselves.