In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.
102-410: A witness might be compelled to provide testimony in court, before a grand jury , before an administrative tribunal , before a deposition officer, or in a variety of other legal proceedings. A subpoena is a legal document that commands a person to appear at a proceeding. It is used to compel the testimony of a witness in a trial . Usually, it can be issued by a judge or by the lawyer representing
204-487: A coroner . A coroner is a public official (often an elected local government official in the United States), who is charged with determining the circumstances leading to a death in ambiguous or suspicious cases, such as of Jeffrey Epstein . A coroner's jury is generally a body that a coroner can convene on an optional basis in order to increase public confidence in the coroner's finding where there might otherwise be
306-988: A grand jury has been used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects. The jury system developed in England during the Middle Ages and is a hallmark of the English common law system. Juries are commonly used in countries whose legal systems derive from the British Empire , such as the United Kingdom , the United States , Canada , Australia , and Ireland . They are not used in most other countries, whose legal systems are based upon European civil law or Islamic sharia law , although their use has been spreading. The "petit jury" (or "trial jury", sometimes "petty jury") hears
408-528: A certain amount of taxes for poor relief . This expanded the number of potential jurors, even though only a small minority of Irish people were eligible to serve. Until the 1870s, jurors in England and Ireland worked under the rule that they could not leave, eat, drink, or have a fire to warm themselves by, though they could take medicine. This rule appears to have been imposed with the idea that hungry jurors would be quicker to compromise, so they could reach
510-473: A common law exception to the hearsay rule based on reliability, which was codified in the Evidence Act. Pursuant to s 4(1) of the act, a hearsay statement is a statement made by someone other than a witness (in the proceedings) that is offered to prove the truth of its contents. Under section 17 of this act a hearsay statement is generally not admissible in any court proceeding. Though section 18 states when
612-404: A conflict of interest, such as initiatives that will not show benefits before the next election or decisions that impact the types of income politicians can receive. They also are particularly well-suited to complex issues with trade-offs and values-driven dilemmas. The modern jury evolved out of the ancient custom of many ancient Germanic tribes whereby a group of men of certain social standing
714-416: A controversy. In practice, coroner's juries are most often convened in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety by one governmental official in the criminal justice system toward another if no charges are filed against the person causing the death, when a governmental party such as a law enforcement officer is involved in the death. A citizens' assembly is a group of people selected by lottery from
816-411: A credible witness is one "whose credibility commends itself to the presiding magistrate ... the trustworthiness" of whom is good. Credible witnesses must be used to give meaning or existence to certain types of legal documents. For example, in most common law jurisdictions , at least two witnesses must sign their names to a will in order to verify that it was executed by the testator. In Canadian law ,
918-457: A credible witness to a Will means a witness who is not incapacitated by mental deficiency, conflict of interest, or crime. Jury A jury is a sworn body of people ( jurors ) convened to hear evidence , make findings of fact , and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court , or to set a penalty or judgment . Most trial juries are " petit juries ", and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as
1020-463: A crime or excuse them on various grounds, such as being ill or holding certain jobs or offices. Serving on a jury is normally compulsory for individuals who are qualified for jury service . Skipping service may be inevitable in a small number of cases, as a summoned juror might become ill or otherwise become unexpectedly unable to appear at the court. However, a significant fraction of summoned jurors may fail to appear for other reasons. In 1874, there
1122-456: A crime, it is possible to look for commonalities in their testimony, which are more likely to represent events as they occurred, although differences are to be expected and don't of themselves indicate dishonesty. Witness identification will help investigators get an idea of what a criminal suspect looks like, but eyewitness recollection include mistaken or misleading elements. One study involved an experiment, in which subjects acted as jurors in
SECTION 10
#17327652570761224-399: A criminal case. Jurors heard a description of a robbery-murder, a prosecution argument, and then an argument for the defense. Some jurors heard only circumstantial evidence ; others heard from a clerk who claimed to identify the defendant. In the former case, 18% percent found the defendant guilty, but in the latter case, 72% found the defendant guilty (Loftus 1988). Police lineups in which
1326-595: A division of functions between the sheriff, the jury of local men, and the royal justices ushered in the era of the English Common Law . Sheriffs prepared cases for trial and found jurors with relevant knowledge and testimony. Jurors 'found' a verdict by witnessing as to fact, even assessing and applying information from their own and community memory—little was written at this time and what was, such as deeds and writs, were subject to fraud. Royal justices supervised trials, answered questions as to law, and announced
1428-418: A fingerprint). An expert witness may or may not also be a percipient witness, as in a doctor or may or may not have treated the victim of an accident or crime. A character witness testifies about the personality of a defendant if it helps to solve the crime in question. A crown witness is one who incriminates former accomplices in a crime who following receive either a lower sentence, immunity or also
1530-523: A free hand in summoning freely from among those people who were qualified to be jurors. In 1920, three of these ten towns – Leicester, Lincoln, and Nottingham – consistently empanelled assize juries of six men and six women; while at the Bristol, Exeter, and Norwich assizes no women were empanelled at all. This quickly led to a tightening up of the rules, and an abolition of these ten towns' discretion. After 1922, trial juries throughout England had to satisfy
1632-508: A guilty one." The resulting Wantage Code formally recognized legal customs that were part of the Danelaw . The testimonial concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case. One of the earliest antecedents of modern jury systems
1734-410: A hearsay statement may be able to be given in court. This is when the statement is reliable, the statement maker is unavailable to be called as a witness or it would provide undue expense and delay if that person was required to be a witness. There are also a number of specific exceptions such as statements in business records. Other exceptions include state of mind evidence (see R v Blastland) and whether
1836-400: A juror, or in another application, a witness. Once the list of prospective jurors has assembled in the courtroom the court clerk assigns them seats in the order their names were originally drawn. At this point the judge often will ask each prospective juror to answer a list of general questions such as name, occupation, education, family relationships, time conflicts for the anticipated length of
1938-440: A jury makes specific findings of fact in what is called a "special verdict". A verdict without specific findings of fact that includes only findings of guilt, or civil liability and an overall amount of civil damages, if awarded, is called a "general verdict". Hearsay Hearsay , in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence
2040-553: A jury pool occurs when a trial is announced and juror names are randomly selected and called out by the jury pool clerk. Depending on the type of trial—whether a 6-person or 12 person jury is needed, in the United States—anywhere from 15 to 30 prospective jurors are sent to the courtroom to participate in voir dire , pronounced [vwaʁ diʁ] in French, the oath to speak the truth in the examination testing competence of
2142-511: A jury was spread through the British Empire, first to Ireland and then to other countries, the size of the jury was one of the details that was adapted to the local culture. The tradition in England was to have twelve jurors, but other countries use smaller juries, and some, such as Scotland, use larger juries. The size of the jury is to provide a "cross-section" of the public. In Williams v. Florida , 399 U.S. 78 (1970),
SECTION 20
#17327652570762244-479: A list of registered voters in the locale), people who have driver's licenses or other relevant data bases. When selected, being a member of a jury pool is, in principle, compulsory. Prospective jurors are sent a summons and are obligated to appear in a specified jury pool room on a specified date. However, jurors can be released from the pool for several reasons including illness, prior commitments that cannot be abandoned without hardship, change of address to outside
2346-712: A majority or supermajority . A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury . A grand jury, a type of jury now confined mostly to federal courts and some state jurisdictions in the United States and Liberia, determines whether there is enough evidence for a criminal trial to go forward. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments , or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments . Grand juries are usually larger than trial juries: for example, U.S. federal grand juries have between 16 and 23 members. The Fifth Amendment to
2448-481: A principle of admissibility of evidence which means that there are very few restrictions on what evidence is allowed in court. It is then up to the court to evaluate the reliability of the evidence presented. In Hong Kong, hearsay is generally admissible in civil proceedings under the statutory regime. Section 46 of the Evidence Ordinance provides that evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it
2550-510: A proceeding, to give further testimony. A court may give leave to a party to recall a witness only to give evidence about a matter adduced by another party if the second party's testimony contradicts evidence given by the original witness on direct examination. Witnesses are usually permitted to testify only what they experienced first-hand. In most cases, they may not testify about something they were told ( hearsay ). That restriction does not apply to expert witnesses, but they may testify only in
2652-408: A protection of themselves or/and their family by the court. After they have provided the court with their testimony they often enter into a witness protection program. A secret witness or anonymous witness is one whose identity is kept secret by the court. In a court proceeding, a witness may be called (requested to testify) by either the prosecution or the defense . The side that calls
2754-516: A representation about ... the traditional laws and customs of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander group", although this arguably would have fallen into the "public right" exception at common law. Confessions are called "admissions" by the act (which led to the confusion whereby counsel apply for the "admission of the admission"). They are dealt with separately under Part 3·4, which lifts the hearsay rule. The act's dictionary defines admission broadly enough to include anything that might be used against
2856-519: A statutory or preserved common law exception, all of the parties to the proceedings agree, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence is admissible. Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that, where a witness is unavailable, hearsay is admissible where The two main common law exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible are res gestae and confessions. Hearsay evidence
2958-410: A verdict and therefore eat. Jurors who broke the rule by smuggling in food were sometimes fined, and occasionally, especially if the food were believed to come from one of the parties in the case, the verdict was quashed. Later in the century, jurors who did not reach a verdict on the first day were no longer required to sleep in the courthouse, but were sometimes put up, at the expense of the parties in
3060-418: A verdict is rendered. In Canadian and English law , the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trial or verdict is considered to be contempt of court , a criminal offense. In the United States, confidentiality is usually only required until a verdict has been reached, and jurors have sometimes made remarks that called into question whether
3162-559: A verdict was properly reached. In Australia, academics are permitted to scrutinize the jury process only after obtaining a certificate or approval from the Attorney-General. Because of the importance of preventing undue influence on a jury, embracery , jury intimidation or jury tampering (like witness tampering ) is a serious crime, whether attempted through bribery , threat of violence , or other means. At various points in history, when threats to jurors became pervasive,
Witness - Misplaced Pages Continue
3264-449: A witness is different from an informant. A confidential informant is someone who claimed to have witnessed an event or have hearsay information, but whose identity is being withheld from at least one party (typically the criminal defendant). The information from the confidential informant may have been used by a police officer or other official acting as a hearsay witness to obtain a search warrant. A percipient witness (or eyewitness )
3366-399: Is inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies. For example, to prove that Tom was in town, a witness testifies, "Susan told me that Tom was in town." Because the witness's evidence relies on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination , the answer is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that
3468-589: Is not necessary and reliable, as in R. v. Starr . The rules of evidence differ among the states and the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth, Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory all share similar hearsay provisions in their Uniform Evidence Acts; the other states rely upon the common law. As elsewhere, hearsay is usually inadmissible, outside of interlocutory proceedings, unless it falls within one of
3570-427: Is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing , offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory ; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless
3672-548: Is admissible. Such limitations do not apply to grand jury investigations, many administrative proceedings, and may not apply to declarations used in support of an arrest or search warrant. Also some types of statements are not deemed to be hearsay and are not subject to such limitations. An expert witness is one who allegedly has specialized knowledge relevant to the matter of interest, which knowledge purportedly helps to either make sense of other evidence, including other testimony, documentary evidence or physical evidence (e.g.,
3774-448: Is also admissible over a hearsay exception because the statements have independent legal significance. Double hearsay is a hearsay statement that contains another hearsay statement itself. Each layer of hearsay must be found separately as admissible for the statement to be admitted in court. Many jurisdictions that generally disallow hearsay evidence in courts permit the more widespread use of hearsay in non-judicial hearings. "Hearsay
3876-426: Is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act. In one example, testimony that a plaintiff stated "I am Napoleon Bonaparte " would be hearsay as proof that the plaintiff is Napoleon, but would not be hearsay as proof that the plaintiff believes they are Napoleon. The hearsay rule does not exclude the evidence if it is an operative fact . Language of commercial offer and acceptance
3978-409: Is called the foreperson , foreman , or presiding juror . The foreperson may be chosen before the trial begins, or at the beginning of the jury's deliberations. The foreperson may be selected by the judge or by vote of the jurors, depending on the jurisdiction. The foreperson's role may include asking questions (usually to the judge) on behalf of the jury, facilitating jury discussions, and announcing
4080-578: Is generally inadmissible in Canada unless it falls within one of the established common law exceptions. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Khan and subsequent cases, hearsay evidence that does not fall within the established exceptions can be admitted where established that such evidence is both "necessary and reliable". Additionally, hearsay evidence that would otherwise be admissible as an exception can nonetheless be excluded if it
4182-429: Is hearsay in civil proceedings unless: the party against whom the evidence is to be adduced objects to the admission of the evidence; as well as: the court is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the exclusion of the evidence is not prejudicial to the interests of justice. Sections 47A to 51 provides for safeguards in relation to hearsay evidence admissible under section 46 so as to avoid abuses of
Witness - Misplaced Pages Continue
4284-411: Is one with knowledge obtained through their own senses (e.g., visual perception , hearing , smell , touch). That perception might be either with the unaided human sense or with the aid of an instrument, such as microscope or stethoscope . A hearsay witness is one who testifies about what someone else said or wrote. In most court proceedings there are many limitations on when hearsay evidence
4386-426: Is the jury in ancient Greece , including the city-state of Athens , where records of jury courts date back to 500 BCE . These juries voted by secret ballot and were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing the practice of judicial review . In modern justice systems, the law is considered "self-contained" and "distinct from other coercive forces, and perceived as separate from
4488-543: Is unavailable: Though a hearsay statement may be admissible through an exception, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a specific constitutional protection for criminal defendants. The Sixth Amendment provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him". If the trial court determines that
4590-581: The Government Accountability Office in the United States federal government and legislative state auditors in many U.S. states. In Ireland and other countries in the past, the task of a grand jury was to determine whether the prosecutors had presented a true bill (one that described a crime and gave a plausible reason for accusing the named person). Another kind of jury, known as a coroner's jury can be convened in some common law jurisdiction in connection with an inquest by
4692-549: The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Florida state jury of six was sufficient, that "the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of "trial by jury," and that respondent's refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for by Florida law "did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth ." In Ballew v. Georgia , 435 U.S. 223 (1978),
4794-561: The University of Glasgow suggested that a civil jury of 12 people was ineffective because a few jurors ended up dominating the discussion, and that seven was a better number because more people feel comfortable speaking, and they have an easier time reaching a unanimous decision. Jurors are expected to be neutral, so the court may inquire about the jurors' neutrality or otherwise exclude jurors who are perceived as likely to be less than neutral or partial to one side. Jury selection in
4896-453: The evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent) (also known as the complainant and defendant within the English criminal legal system). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge , the group retires for deliberation , to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be
4998-404: The plaintiff or the defendant in a civil trial or by the prosecutor or the defense attorney in a criminal proceeding , or by a government agency . In many jurisdictions , it is compulsory to comply with the subpoena and either take an oath or solemnly affirm to testify truthfully under penalty of perjury . Although informally a witness includes whoever perceived the event, in law,
5100-675: The 17th century until 1898 in Ireland , Grand Juries also functioned as local government authorities. In 1730, the British Parliament passed the Bill for Better Regulation of Juries. The Act stipulated that the list of all those liable for jury service was to be posted in each parish and that jury panels would be selected by lot, also known as sortition , from these lists. Its aim was to prevent middle-class citizens from evading their responsibilities by financially putting into question
5202-505: The Confrontation Clause has been validated, then the hearsay evidence will not be admitted. Also, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as domestic public documents under seal, domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, foreign public documents, certified copies of public records, official publications, newspapers and periodicals, trade inscriptions and
SECTION 50
#17327652570765304-599: The Supreme Court ruled that the number of jurors could not be reduced below six. In Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that a jury of 12 members was not an essential feature of "trial by jury" in section 80 of the Australian Constitution . In Scotland , a jury in a criminal trial consists of 15 jurors, which is thought to be the largest in
5406-592: The U.S. Constitution guarantees Americans the constitutional right to be free from charges for "capital, or otherwise infamous" crimes unless they have been indicted by a grand jury, although this right applies only to federal law, not state law. In addition to their primary role in screening criminal prosecutions and assisting in the investigation of crimes, grand juries in California, Florida, and some other U.S. states are sometimes utilized to perform an investigative and policy audit function similar to that filled by
5508-402: The United States usually includes organized questioning of the prospective jurors (jury pool) by the lawyers for the plaintiff and the defendant and by the judge— voir dire —as well as rejecting some jurors because of bias or inability to properly serve ("challenge for cause"), and the discretionary right of each side to reject a specified number of jurors without having to prove a proper cause for
5610-533: The accused. The other sections in the part for the most part codify, roughly, the common-law rules. In Malaysia, hearsay evidence is generally not allowed. However, the Evidence Act 1950 permitted a few exceptions, such as section 60, 73A, 73AA etc. Hearsay evidence is covered by sections 16-22 of the Evidence Act 2006 . Previously inadmissible, the 1989 decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Baker created
5712-417: The area of their expertise. Although eyewitness testimony is often assumed to be more reliable than circumstantial evidence , studies have established that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed. Mistaken eyewitness identification may result from such factors as faulty observation and recollection, or bias, or may involve a witness's knowingly giving false testimony. If several people witness
5814-464: The asserted facts. In Lee v The Queen , the term representation was used to apply to statements and to conduct and was used to encompass all those statements or that conduct would convey to the observer. The extraordinary s 60 allows a statement's use as hearsay if it is admitted for a non-hearsay purpose, although the application of s 60 may be limited by s 137 (which is essentially the discretion formerly known as Christie). S 72 excepts "evidence of
5916-400: The attorneys may ask follow-up questions of some or all prospective jurors. Each side in the trial is allotted a certain number of challenges to remove prospective jurors from consideration. Some challenges are issued during voir dire while others are presented to the judge at the end of voir dire. The judge calls out the names of the anonymously challenged prospective jurors and those return to
6018-429: The broader category of cognitive processes , the different ways in which we make sense of the world around us. That is done by employing the mental skills at one's disposal like thinking, perception, memory, awareness, reasoning, and judgment. Although cognitive processes can be only inferred and cannot be seen directly, they all have very important practical implications within a legal context. If one were to accept that
6120-431: The case, lawyers, and witnesses are not allowed to speak with a member of the jury. Doing these things may constitute reversible error . Rarely, such as in very high-profile cases, the court may order a jury sequestered for the deliberation phase or for the entire trial. Jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in strict confidence during the trial and deliberations, and in some jurisdictions even after
6222-681: The common law regime remains the rules followed by the Hong Kong criminal courts. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in all criminal cases except for common law and statutory exemptions, which include: admissions and confessions, dying declarations, declarations in the course of duty, declarations against interest, co-conspirator's rule, statements in public documents, out-of-court statements, evidence in former proceedings, and res gestae . Statutory exceptions in criminal cases include: negative assertions (s.17A Evidence Ordinance), bank records (ss.19B and 20 Evidence Ordinance), documentary records compiled by
SECTION 60
#17327652570766324-429: The country. The jury in this period was "self-informing," meaning it heard very little evidence or testimony in court. Instead, jurors were recruited from the locality of the dispute and were expected to know the facts before coming to court. The source of juror knowledge could include first-hand knowledge, investigation, and less reliable sources such as rumour and hearsay. Between 1166 and 1179 new procedures including
6426-477: The court's decision which was then subject to appeal. Sheriffs executed the decision of the court. These procedures enabled Henry II to delegate authority without endowing his subordinates with too much power. In 1215 the Catholic Church removed its sanction from all forms of the ordeal—procedures by which suspects up to that time were 'tested' as to guilt (e.g., in the ordeal of hot metal, molten metal
6528-435: The court's jurisdiction, travel or employment outside the jurisdiction at the time of duty, and others. Often jurisdictions pay token amounts for jury duty and many issue stipends to cover transportation expenses for jurors. Work places cannot penalize employees who serve jury duty. Payments to jurors varies by jurisdiction. In the United States jurors for grand juries are selected from jury pools. Selection of jurors from
6630-401: The defendant testifies. When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay , and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible. There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law. Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following: Rule 804 adds several additional exceptions where the declarant
6732-423: The eyewitness picks out a suspect from a group of people in the police station are often grossly suggestive, and they give the false impression that the witness remembered the suspect. In another study, students watched a staged crime. An hour later they looked through photos. A week later they were asked to pick the suspect out of lineups. 8% of the people in the lineups were mistakenly identified as criminals. 20% of
6834-427: The general admission: The courts shall draw inferences from the circumstances as to the weight attached to hearsay evidence, in particular: The new civil regime also preserves a number of common law exceptions that are unaffected by the statutory safeguards except for the section 47A safeguard relating to notice. In criminal proceedings, the law relating to hearsay has not been substantially changed in Hong Kong, and
6936-399: The general population to deliberate on important public questions so as to exert an influence. Other types of deliberative mini-publics include citizens' jury, citizens' panel, people's panel, people's jury, policy jury, consensus conference and citizens' convention. A citizens' assembly uses elements of a jury to create public policy. Its members form a representative cross-section of
7038-468: The hearsay exceptions. Hearsay is dealt with under Part 3·2. There are several local peculiarities with its treatment. s 59 defines the "fact" of a hearsay statement as being something "that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation". Hearsay rule confines the potentially broad number of assertions it might cover by this broad definition of representation to only intended representations adduced to prove existence of
7140-416: The innocent people whose photographs were included were mistakenly identified. Weapon focus effects in which the presence of a weapon impairs memory for surrounding details is also an issue. Another study looked at 65 cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In 45% of the cases, eyewitness mistakes were responsible. The formal study of eyewitness memory is usually undertaken within
7242-506: The jury. For example, in the United Kingdom, a small number of alternate jurors may be empanelled until the end of the opening speeches by counsel, in case a juror realises they are familiar with the matters before the court. Jurors are selected from a jury pool formed for a specified period of time—usually from one day to two weeks—from lists of citizens living in the jurisdiction of the court. The lists may be electoral rolls (i.e.,
7344-530: The late eighteenth century, King has found evidence of butchers being excluded from service in Essex; while Crosby has found evidence of "peripatetic ice cream vendors" not being summoned in the summer time as late as 1923. With the adoption of the Juries Act (Ireland) 1871, property qualifications for Irish jurors were partially standardized and lowered, so that jurors were drawn from among men who paid above
7446-658: The law in addition to rulings on the facts of the case. The American grand jury was also indispensable to the American Revolution by challenging the Crown and Parliament, including by indicting British soldiers, refusing to indict people who criticized the crown, proposing boycotts and called for the support of the war after the Declaration of Independence. In the late 18th century, English and colonial civil, criminal and grand juries played major roles in checking
7548-409: The like, acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), commercial paper and related documents, presumptions under Acts of Congress, certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, and certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity. In England and Wales, hearsay is generally admissible in civil proceedings, but is only admissible in criminal proceedings if it falls within
7650-403: The list of eligible jurors in each court district was alphabetized, and in the later part of the century, the sheriff was required to summon one potential juror from each letter of the alphabet, repeating as needed until a sufficient number of men had been summoned, usually between 36 and 60 men for the quarterly assizes . Normally the sheriff or a constable went to each juror's home to show him
7752-543: The mid-12th century during the reign of Henry II . Juries, usually 6 or 12 men, were an "ancient institution" even then in some parts of England, at the same time as Members consisted of representatives of the basic units of local government— hundreds (an administrative sub-division of the shire , embracing several vills) and villages. Called juries of presentment, these men testified under oath to crimes committed in their neighbourhood. The Assize of Clarendon in 1166 caused these juries to be adopted systematically throughout
7854-626: The neutrality of the under-sheriff, the official entrusted with impaneling juries. Prior to the Act, the main means of ensuring impartiality was by allowing legal challenges to the sheriff's choices. The new provisions did not specifically aim at establishing impartiality but had the effect of reinforcing the authority of the jury by guaranteeing impartiality at the point of selection. In some American colonies (such as in New England and Virginia) and less often in England, juries also handed down rulings on
7956-428: The number of witnesses who testify. Several factors affect witnesses' credibility . Generally, witnesses are perceived as more credible when they are perceived as more accurate and less suggestible. At common law , the term could be used in relation to the giving of testimony, or for the witnessing of documents. In modern English law , a credible witness is one who is not "speaking from hearsay ." In Scottish law ,
8058-400: The past, qualifications included things like being an adult male, having a good reputation in the community, and owning land. Modern requirements may include being a citizen of that country and having a fluent understanding of the language used during the trial. In addition to a minimum age, some countries have a maximum age. Some countries disqualify people who have been previously convicted of
8160-593: The people living in that area. For example, in 19th-century Ireland, the qualified jurors were much wealthier, much less likely to be Roman Catholic , and much less likely to speak only the Irish language than the typical Irish person. In the past, England had special juries , which empaneled only wealthier property owners as jurors. Attacks on the American jury increased after the pool of jurors expanded to include newly-enfranchised women and minorities. A head juror
8262-404: The person who made the statement is not in court and thus not available for cross-examination. Note, however, that if the matter at hand is not the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan. Now the witness
8364-416: The political branches. The role of the jury is often described as that of a finder of fact , while the judge is usually seen as having the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. The jury determines the truth or falsity of factual allegations and renders a verdict on whether a criminal defendant is guilty, or a civil defendant is civilly liable. Sometimes
8466-557: The political life of the community," but "all these barriers are absent in the context of classical Athens. In practice and in conception the law and its administration are in some important respects indistinguishable from the life of the community in general." In juries of the Justices in Eyre , the bailiff of the hundred would choose 4 electors who in turn chose 12 others from their hundred, and from these were selected 12 jurors. From
8568-447: The pool for consideration in other trials. A jury is formed, then, of the remaining prospective jurors in the order that their names were originally chosen. Any prospective jurors not thus impaneled return to the jury pool room. A jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict and representing a variety of people from that area. Achieving this goal can be difficult when juror qualifications differ significantly from
8670-444: The power of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In 1825, the rules concerning juror selection in England were consolidated. Property qualifications and various other rules were standardised, although an exemption was left open for towns which "possessed" their own courts. This reflected a more general understanding that local officials retained a large amount of discretion regarding which people they actually summoned. In
8772-501: The public, and are provided with time, resources and a broad range of viewpoints to learn deeply about an issue. Through skilled facilitation, the assembly members weigh trade-offs and work to find common ground on a shared set of recommendations. Citizens' assemblies can be more representative and deliberative than public engagement, polls, legislatures or ballot initiatives . They seek quality of participation over quantity. They also have added advantages in issues where politicians have
8874-401: The rejection ("peremptory challenge"), before the jury is impaneled . Since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing a trial for health or other reasons, often one or more alternate jurors may be selected. Alternates are present for the entire trial but do not take part in deliberating the case and deciding the verdict unless one or more of the impaneled jurors are removed from
8976-496: The right to jury trial has been revoked, such as during the 1880s in Ireland. Jurors themselves can also be held liable if they deliberately compromise their impartiality. Depending on local law, if a juror takes a bribe, the verdict may be overturned and the juror may be fined or imprisoned. Robert Burns and Alexander Hamilton argued that jurors were the least likely decision-makers to be corrupted when compared to judges and all
9078-479: The same qualifications; although it was not until the 1980s that a centralised system was designed for selecting jurors from among the people who were qualified to serve. This meant there was still a great amount of discretion in the hands of local officials. Potential jurors are summoned to the courthouse for service. In the past, jurors were identified manually, by local authorities making lists of men they believed to be eligible for service. In 19th-century Ireland,
9180-417: The single most important factor contributing to wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification. A credible witness is a person who acts as a witness, including through giving testimony in court , whose testimony is perceived as truthful and believable. Other witnesses may be perceived as less credible, or to have no credibility. Assessment of credibility is made of each witness, and is not affected by
9282-564: The statement is tendered to prove the fact it was uttered or made, rather than to prove the truth of its contents (see DPP v Subramaniam). In Sri Lanka, hearsay evidence is generally not allowed. However, the Evidence Ordinance recognizes a few exceptions such as res gestae (recognised under Section 6) and common intention (recognised under Section 10)and some other exceptions from section 17 to section 39. Some other exceptions are provided by case law (see Subramaniam v. DPP [1956] 1 WLR 956 (PC)). Sweden allows hearsay evidence. Sweden applies
9384-427: The summons paperwork ( venire facias de novo ); it wasn't until 1871 that any Irish jurors could be summoned by mail. In modern times, juries are often initially chosen randomly, usually from large databases identifying the eligible population of adult citizens residing in the court's jurisdictional area (e.g., identity cards, drivers' licenses, tax records, or similar systems), and summons are delivered by mail. In
9486-437: The trial, at a hotel. After 1919 in England, women were no longer excluded from jury service by virtue of their sex, although they still had to satisfy the ordinary property qualifications. The exemption which had been created by the 1825 Act for towns which "possessed" their own courts meant ten towns were free to ignore the property qualifications. This amplified in these towns the general understanding that local officials had
9588-428: The trial. The list is usually written up and clearly visible to assist nervous prospective jurors and may include several questions uniquely pertinent to the particular trial. These questions are to familiarize the judge and attorneys with the jurors and glean biases, experiences, or relationships that could jeopardize the proper course of the trial. After each prospective juror has answered the general slate of questions
9690-469: The verdict of the jury. For juries to fulfill their role of analyzing the facts of the case, there are strict rules about their use of information during the trial. Juries are often instructed to avoid learning about the case from any source other than the trial (for example from media or the Internet) and not to conduct their own investigations (such as independently visiting a crime scene ). Parties to
9792-417: The way people think, perceive, reason, and judge is not always perfect, it becomes easier to understand why cognitive processes and the factors influencing the processes are studied by psychologists in matters of law, one being the grave implications that this imperfection can have within the criminal justice system. The study of witness memory has dominated the realm of investigation. As Huff and Rattner note,
9894-410: The witness first asks questions in what is called direct examination . The opposing side then may ask their own questions in what is called cross-examination . In some cases, redirect examination may be used by the side that called the witness but usually only to contradict specific testimony from the cross-examination. Recalling a witness means calling a witness, who has already given testimony in
9996-604: The world. In 2009 a review by the Scottish Government regarding the possibility of reduction led to the decision to retain 15 jurors, with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stating that after extensive consultation, he had decided that Scotland had got it "uniquely right". Trials in the Republic of Ireland which are scheduled to last over 2 months can, but do not have to, have 15 jurors. A study by
10098-404: Was a report that one-third of summoned Irish jurors failed to appear in court. When an insufficient number of summoned jurors appear in court to handle a matter, the law in many jurisdictions empowers the jury commissioner or other official convening the jury to involuntarily impress bystanders in the vicinity of the place where the jury is to be convened to serve on the jury. As the concept of
10200-523: Was a short step to ask jurors if they concluded the accused was guilty as charged. The so-called Wantage Code provides an early reference to a jury-like group in England, wherein a decree issued by King Æthelred the Unready (at Wantage , c. 997) provided that in every Hundred "the twelve leading thegns together with the reeve shall go out and swear on the relics which are given into their hands, that they will not accuse any innocent man nor shield
10302-431: Was sometimes poured into a suspected thief's hand. If the wound healed rapidly and well, it was believed God found the suspect innocent, and if not then the suspect was found guilty). With trial by ordeal banned, establishing guilt would have been problematic had England not had forty years of judicial experience. Justices were by then accustomed to asking jurors of presentment about points of fact in assessing indictments; it
10404-561: Was used to investigate crimes and judge the accused. The same custom evolved into the vehmic court system in medieval Germany. In Anglo-Saxon England, juries investigated crimes. After the Norman Conquest , some parts of the country preserved juries as the means of investigating crimes. The use of ordinary members of the community to consider crimes was unusual in ancient cultures, but was nonetheless also found in ancient Greece. The modern jury trial evolved out of this custom in
#75924