Sorry, not American. If a jury decides your fate, what is the role of the judge? Here in South Africa the judge alone decides. Always thought it would be cool to be in a jury.

18 comments

  1. The judge decides which laws apply to the case and the jury decides guilt based on the relevant laws and facts of the case presented to them.

    Here’s how it was explained to me as a kid by my dad (an attorney).

    The judge decides whether its a boxing match or a bicycle race. The jury decides who wins. The judge figures out what the prize should be.

  3. Our system is based on the British system, so it’s not actually unique to us.

    Not every trial is a jury trial. If the judge decides, it’s called a bench trial. But in a jury trial the judge just kind of guides the whole process.

  4. In a jury trial the judge is a little bit like an umpire. They make interpretive calls and give instructions and ensure that the whole thing is being conducted fairly and according to the law. But the decision (guilt or innocence) for the most part is ultimately left up to the jury. In RARE occasions a judge can declare the jury’s decision invalid.

    In some instances, if the jury finds you guilty the same judge is then tasked with deciding and delivering your sentence.

    And in certain other instances, there is no jury and the judge is the only person deciding things.

  5. A judge presides over the trial, and decides matters of law. After being instructed on the law by the judge, the jury decides matters of fact.

  7. I was on a jury for a murder trial a couple years ago, and we only had to decide if guilty or not. The judge did the sentencing at a later date.

  8. American law is largely based on English Common Law, and thus, the jury begins with English law. Since a fundamental philosophy of English and American law is that the law and government are carried out at the will of the people, it is necessary that they have an active role in their application. Citizens are therefore obliged to witness the proceedings for a trial, and to decide the verdict. Laws are meant to be within the standard of community norms, and this ensures they are grounded within the consent and the understanding of common people.

    There’s a very interesting crack in the the jury system that I was just reading about. The short version is that a small section of Idaho, through complicated circumstances of law with regard to jurisdiction, has no community from which citizens can serve on a jury. It is legally ambiguous as to whether or not a federal crime can be prosecuted if one is perpetrated in this area, because the Constitution requires any federal criminal trial to be decided by a jury of one’s own peers from the state *and* federal district of the area where the crime took place.

    One legal scholar argued that this wouldn’t be nearly the problem that others have suggested it would be, because the point of a jury is to ensure that the community is having their interests in fair application of law represented. If there is no community, than there’s no one’s interests to be left without satisfaction.

  9. You can definitely choose a “bench trial” where the judge decides if you are guilty, but everyone has a right to a trial where guilt or innocence is decided by a “jury of your peers”. If you opt for a jury trial, the jury decides if you are guilty or not, and if they decide you are guilty, a judge decides your sentence. The judge also makes decisions on what evidence can be admitted, and decides on any objections raised by the attorneys.

    You do not need a complex understanding of the law to serve on a jury. You are given all the information you need to come to a decision, and the jury can request to meet with the judge if they need clarification. The jury’s decision is final, even in the case of “jury nullification”.

  10. A judge effectively presides over the trial and ensures that both sides presents their evidence, etc. within the rules of the law. Then, when a verdict is reached, the judge issues a sentence within the confines of the law.

    We do have bench trials where a judge hears the case and acts as a jury though.

  11. Put broadly, the jury decides what the facts are, and the judge decides what the law is. Juries might decide which witnesses are more credible, which of the parties’ competing stories is true, etc., and on that basis they’ll render a verdict. But the legal questions (e.g. what sorts of evidence can be considered by the jury) are always decided by the judge.

  12. Think of a judge as a referee, they make sure the correct rules are applied in the correct way but they don’t determine the outcome. The jury listens to all evidence presented and, based on the judges instructions, determines if the prosecution has proven their case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

  13. The judge is kinda like the referee of the trial. They decide what relevant law is applicable to the case and help guide the jury to understand what laws they should be considering when determining guilt or innocence. As well as arbitrating disputes between the opposing lawyers. They also determine what the sentence will be if someone is found guilty.

    So the jury determines guilt or innocence, the judge determines everything else.

  14. Here’s a quick rundown of a jury trial (assuming the defendant doesn’t waive their right to trial by jury and opts for a “bench trial” with solely a judge instead):

    * A prosecuting attorney brings formal criminal charges against the defendant. For serious charges, some states have preliminary “grand jury” trials to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to where a normal criminal trial is needed.

    * Both side’s lawyers compile their evidence, witnesses, etc. in a process known as discovery. They’re required to share what they find with the other side’s lawyers, to prevent an “ambush trial” where one side’s left in the dark about potential evidence.

    * A pool of jury candidates are randomly selected from the general population in the jurisdiction where the crime took place (usually the county) and summoned to a courthouse. From them, twelve jurors are selected to the satisfaction of both the prosecution and defense attorneys in a process known as *voir dire*.

    * The trial begins in earnest. The judge informs the jury of the charges against the defendant, what standards must be met to rule guilty, and their job to decide whether the prosecution has proven that standard.

    * The prosecution and defense present their cases: making opening statements, presenting evidence, examining witnesses, and cross-examining the other side’s witnesses. Throughout this, it is the judge’s role to make sure that the rules and laws of the courtroom are being properly followed.

    * When both sides rest their case, the jury is sequestered (i.e., goes to a private area) to deliberate on the matter. If it’s a high-profile trial, they may be forbidden from access to TV, news, and the internet to avoid swaying their opinions.

    * The jury reaches a verdict and announces it to the court. If they fail to achieve a unanimous consensus, then a mistrial is declared (meaning that there’s legally no result and the prosecution can bring the case again if they wish).

    * If the defendant is found guilty, judge then determines adequate sentencing at a later date.

  17. Something that no one has mentioned yet is the concept of “jury nullification”. The gist of it is, you could have a defendant who blatantly and undoubtedly broke the law but the jury decides that the law itself is wrong and gives a not guilty verdict despite the fact that the defendant broke the law. The most notable example of this is when jury nullification was used under the Alien and Sedition Act during slavery in the 1800’s.

  18. Juries are “fact finders” and judges interpret the law. The judge will provide a jury with jury instructions that asks specific questions that usually come down to yes or no answers. Their responses to those question determine the verdict.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like