THE JURY IN

THE U.S.
 WHY I CHOSE THIS TOPIC?
The reason why I chose this topic is because the jury
system is a crucial aspect of the United States legal
system, and it is essential to understand its role in
upholding justice and ensuring fairness for all individuals
involved in a court case. As a topic, the jury system in the
United States holds significant importance due to its
ability to affect the outcome of a case and ultimately
determine the fate of those involved.
 The jury system in the United States is a key component of our democracy and our freedom.
Juries are composed of average citizens who actively participate in deciding the outcome of
legal disputes brought to trial. Today, people who make up the jury are chosen at random from
the community.
 JURY SELECTION
 Jurors in some states are selected through voter registration and drivers' license lists. A form is sent to
prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking the recipient to answer questions about citizenship,
disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have any conditions that would
excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, a summons is issued. In the federal system,
jurors are selected in accordance with the Jury Selection Act.
 WOMEN IN UNITED STATES
JURIES
The representation of women in United States juries has increased during the last hundred years, due to legislation
and court rulings. Up until the late twentieth century, women were routinely excluded or allowed to opt out from jury
service. The push for women's jury rights generated debate similar to the women's suffrage movement, permeating
the media with arguments for and against. Federal and state court case rulings increased women's participation on
juries. Some states allowed women to serve on juries much earlier than others. States also differed on whether
women's suffrage implied women's jury service.
 THE FEDERAL JURY

 A federal jury, in the United States, is impaneled to try federal civil cases and to indict and try
those accused by United States Attorneys of federal crimes. A federal grand jury consists of 16
to 23 members and requires the concurrence of 12 in order to indict. A federal petit jury
consists of 12 members and the verdict must be unanimous.
CRIMINAL JURIES
Grand jury
 A grand jury decides whether or not
there is enough evidence ("probable
cause") that a person has committed a
crime in order to put him or her on trial.
If a grand jury decides there is enough
evidence, the person is indicted. A
grand jury has 16-23 members, and its
proceedings are not open to the public.
Unlike a petit jury, defendants and their
attorneys do not have the right to appear
before the grand jury.
CRIMINAL JURIES
Petit jury
 A petit jury, also known as a trial jury, is the
standard type of jury used in criminal cases in
the United States. Petit juries are responsible
for deciding whether or not a defendant is
guilty of violating the law in a specific case.
They consist of 6-12 people and their
deliberations are private. Their decision is
known as a verdict and decides whether a
person is guilty or not guilty.
 Currently in the United States every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more
than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from the Sixth
Amendment, the Seventh Amendment, and Article Three of the United States Constitution, which
states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes ... shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State
where the said Crimes shall have been committed". Most states' constitutions also grant the right of
trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have eliminated that right in offenses punishable
by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury
is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases.
 SENTENCING
 In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey, and Blakely v. Washington, the Supreme Court of the
United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question
of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the
maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines.
 This invalidated the procedure in many states and the federal courts that allowed sentencing
enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on
the judge's findings alone. Depending upon the state a jury must be unanimous for either a
guilty or not guilty decision. In the event of a hung jury, charges against the defendant are not
dropped and can be reinstated if the state so chooses. In the federal system, a unanimous
verdict is required.
 CIVIL JURIES
 The right to trial by jury in a civil case is addressed by the 7th Amendment, which provides: "In Suits at common
law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and
no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the
rules of the common law." Although the civil jury (unlike the criminal jury) has fallen into disuse in much of the
rest of the world, it remains in high esteem in the United States.
 The 7th Amendment does not create any right to a jury trial; rather, it "preserves" the right to jury trial that existed
in 1791 at common law. In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited
from England at the time. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity.
Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not.
 CRITICISM
 It has been proposed that the federal civil jury system be abolished in order to clean up the backlog of cases,
keep court calendars current, and obtain better and more efficient administration of justice. Research indicates
that while civil trials may proceed more slowly before a jury, judge-tried cases last longer on the docket.
 Proposals to abolish the jury system have been criticized on the grounds that only reform, not abolition, is
necessary; and that there is no better alternative system. Juror ignorance has been described as a potential
threat to justice; for instance, one study found that 50% of jurors surveyed thought that it was up to the
defendant to prove his innocence.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_the_United_States#
 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/learn-about-jury-service
 https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/trial