query: where is a right to a trial by jury found

pos: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution six would be sufficient, but anything less would deprive the defendant of a right to trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring states to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. Thus, states are not mandated to require jury unanimity, unless the jury has only six members. The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial. Impartiality has been interpreted as requiring

pos: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for no more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement. Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist. Also, in the United States, except for serious offenses (such as murder), minors are usually tried in a juvenile court, which lessens the sentence allowed, but forfeits the right to a jury. Originally, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial indicated a right to "a trial by jury

pos: Jury trial the United States is that verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous. Every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from 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." The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the

pos: United States v. Jackson the defendant attempted an acquittal by going to trial, he would be risking his life if the jury found him guilty. The majority found that the "inevitable effect of any such provision is, of course, to discourage assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial." However, the majority disagreed with the District Court’s assertion that the Federal Kidnapping Act fails entirely because its penalty clause is deficient. The court determined that the part of the Act which details punishment is severable from the rest

pos: Dylann Roof rare cases where Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial outweighs the public's and the press' First Amendment right of access. ... This is an unusually sensitive period in this proceeding where highly prejudicial publicity could taint the jury pool and make selection of a fair and impartial jury increasingly challenging." Two Charleston-area media outlets, "The Charleston Post and Courier" and WCBD-TV, unsuccessfully sought to keep the hearing open. On September 6, 2016, federal prosecutors filed a motion seeking to bar Roof's attorneys from asking the jurors for mercy during sentencing should he be found guilty of the charges

pos: Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas Blanton v. North Las Vegas, , is a United States Supreme Court case clarifying the limitations of the right to trial by jury. Melvin R. Blanton was charged with Driving under the influence of alcohol. His petition for a jury trial was denied and he was instead given a bench trial. Blanton appealed, arguing that his sixth amendment right to trial by jury had been violated. The Court ruled that Blanton did not have the right to a jury trial because the crime he was charged with was "petty". The Court went on

pos: Right to a fair trial Right to a fair trial A trial which is observed by trial judge or by jury without being partial is a fair trial. Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from

pos: Right to a fair trial to provide for a young offender's needs. Right to a fair trial A trial which is observed by trial judge or by jury without being partial is a fair trial. Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury

pos: Article Three of the United States Constitution tried before a jury, unless the defendant waives his right. Also, the trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress. The United States Senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases. Two of the Constitutional Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights contain related provisions. The Sixth Amendment enumerates the rights of individuals when facing criminal prosecution and the Seventh Amendment establishes an individual's right to a jury trial in

pos: Jury to make such findings unilaterally violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. A similar Sixth Amendment argument in "Apprendi v. New Jersey", resulted in the Supreme Court's expansion of the requirement to all criminal cases, holding that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt". Many U.S. jurisdictions permit the seating of an advisory jury in a civil case in which there is no right to trial by jury to provide non-binding advice to the trial judge, although this procedural

pos: Trial of Dylann Roof Gergel wrote: "This instance is one of those rare cases where Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial outweighs the public's and the press' First Amendment right of access. ... This is an unusually sensitive period in this proceeding where highly prejudicial publicity could taint the jury pool and make selection of a fair and impartial jury increasingly challenging." Two Charleston-area media outlets, "The Charleston Post and Courier" and WCBD-TV, unsuccessfully sought to keep the hearing open. On September 6, 2016, federal prosecutors filed a motion seeking to bar Roof's attorneys from asking the jurors for their client's mercy

pos: Bench trial examples cited included the United States, the Commonwealth of Nations including India and Canada, the British overseas territories of the Falkland Islands and St. Helena, and the Netherlands. In U.S. law, for most criminal cases, trial by jury is usually a matter of course as it is a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment and cannot be waived without certain requirements. Under section 21 of the rules of Federal Criminal Procedure, if a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless (1) the defendant waives a jury trial in writing, (2) the government consents,

pos: Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but

pos: Judgment notwithstanding verdict trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. This intervention, often requested but rarely granted, permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions. A judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases; such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set

pos: Juries in the United States jury." Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that all trials shall be by jury. The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a jury trial in civil cases. The U.S. Supreme Court noted the importance of the jury right in its 1968 ruling of "Duncan v. Louisiana":

pos: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights yet been addressed include the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits. Incorporation applies both procedurally and substantively to the guarantees of the states. Thus, procedurally, only a jury can convict a defendant of a serious crime, since the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right has been incorporated against the states; substantively, for example, states must recognize the First Amendment prohibition against a state-established religion, regardless of whether state laws and constitutions offer such a prohibition. The Supreme Court has declined, however, to apply new procedural constitutional

pos: Indictment the offense. Each offense usually is set out in a separate "count". Indictments for complex crimes, particularly those involving conspiracy or numerous counts, may run to hundreds of pages. However, in other cases an indictment for a crime as serious as murder, may consist of a single sheet of paper. Indictable offenses are normally tried by jury, unless the accused waives the right to a jury trial. Although the Sixth Amendment mandates the right to a jury trial in any criminal prosecution, the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by the plea-bargaining process. A direct

neg: Jury Seventh Amendment, which requires a civil jury in cases where the value in dispute is greater than twenty dollars. However, the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial does not apply in state courts, where the right to a jury is strictly a matter of state law. However, in practice, all states except Louisiana preserve the right to a jury trial in almost all civil cases where the sole remedy sought is money damages to the same extent as jury trials are permitted by the Seventh Amendment. Under the law of many states, jury trials are not allowed in

neg: Juries in the United States 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. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for

neg: Jury trial lawsuit; civil law is the branch of common law dealing with non-criminal actions. It should not be confused with legal system of civil law." The right to trial by jury in a civil case in federal court is addressed by the Seventh Amendment. Importantly, however, the Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a right to a civil jury trial in state courts (although most state constitutions guarantee such a right). The Seventh Amendment 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

neg: Juries in England and Wales accused retains the right to elect for a Crown Court trial with a jury. Summary offences are tried by magistrates and there is no right of Crown Court trial by jury. During the 21st century some exceptions to jury trial in the Crown Court have been developed. Crown Court trial without a jury is permitted in cases of suspected jury tampering where there is evidence of a "real and present danger" and, despite the possibility of police protection, there is a substantial likelihood of tampering, and a trial without a jury is in the interests of justice. The first such

neg: Juries in the United States handed down in bench trials. In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial. Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant have a waiver of jury trial. However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial. The right to a jury trial is exclusively that of the criminal defendant; where one has the right to waive a jury trial, and does so, the prosecution cannot ask for one. In "Patton v. United States", one of the jurors became

neg: Right to a fair trial for this. In Taxquet v Belgium a violation of article 6(1) was found. The court also implied a right to a reasoned verdict, irrespective of whether that was given by a judge or a jury. Under ECHR case law, jury decisions can also be problematic in circumstances where juries draw adverse inferences from trial judges' directions in contravention of Article 6(3) (b) and (c). EU member states that do not have a jury system or any other form of lay adjudication in criminal matters or have abolished it include: Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Romania. In these countries,

neg: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution fact, and that the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial therefore does not necessarily apply. Lawsuits against the federal government itself do not receive Seventh Amendment protections due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In "Lehman v. Nakshian" (1981), the Court ruled that citizens may sue the federal government only in cases where such right has been granted by act of Congress. The Supreme Court has held that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial also guarantees a jury of sufficient size. The Court found a six-member jury sufficient to meet the amendment's requirements in "Colgrove v. Battin"

neg: Jury trial accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated 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

neg: Duncan v. Louisiana from the Louisiana State Supreme Court. Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to jury trial in state prosecutions where sentences as long as two years may be imposed. Justice White noted that the right to a jury trial for criminal offenses is a deeply enshrined value in the British and American legal traditions. Thus, right to a jury trial in criminal cases is within the 14th Amendment and so is applicable to the states. The question for the court was whether an offense subject to two years' imprisonment is a "serious offense." The majority noted that at

neg: Juries in the United States may severely limit developments in the principles of "res judicata". Some critics believe that the United States has more trial by jury than is necessary or desirable. The right to a jury trial is determined based upon the a demand in the complaint brought by a Plaintiff, without regard to the defenses or counterclaims asserted by a defendant. The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part. It has been suggested

neg: Summary offence against summarily, and without a jury". These include criminal citations. Any crime punishable by more than six months of imprisonment must have some means for a jury trial. Some states, such as California, provide that all common law crimes and misdemeanors require a jury trial. Some states provide that in all offenses the defendant may demand a jury trial. (Note that the right to trial by jury is the exclusive right of the defendant, if the defendant chooses to select a bench trial (trial by judge) the prosecution cannot object.) Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court,

neg: United States Constitution amendment requires what has become known as the "Miranda" warning. The Seventh Amendment (1791) extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. Although the Seventh Amendment itself says that it is limited to "suits at common law", meaning cases that triggered the right to a jury under English law, the amendment has been found to apply in lawsuits that are similar to the old common law cases. For example, the right to a jury trial applies to cases brought under federal statutes that prohibit race or gender

neg: Jury trial has a civil law legal tradition, permits jury trials in civil cases in state courts on substantially the same basis that they are allowed under the Seventh Amendment in federal court. The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part. The court determines the right to jury based on all claims by all parties involved. If the plaintiff brings only equitable claims but the defendant asserts counterclaims of law, the court

neg: Jury trial Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution extend the rights to trial by jury to include the right to jury trial for both criminal and civil matters and a grand jury for serious cases. Some jurisdictions with jury trials allow the defendant to waive their right to a jury trial, thus leading to a bench trial. Jury trials tend to occur only when a crime is considered serious. In some jurisdictions, such as France and Brazil, jury trials are reserved, and compulsory, for the most severe crimes and are not available for civil cases. In Brazil, for example,

neg: Jury trial and custody modifications. Only eleven states allow juries in any aspect of divorce litigation (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin). Most of these limit the right to a jury to try issues regarding grounds or entitlement for divorce only. Texas provides jury trial rights most broadly, including even the right to a jury trial on questions regarding child custody. However, anyone who is charged with a criminal offense, breach of contract or federal offence has a Constitutional right to a trial by jury. "In the United States, a civil action is a

neg: Galloway v. United States directed verdict and the District Court granted it in favor of the Government stating Petitioner did not meet his burden with the evidence he presented. Petitioner claimed the directed verdict denied him his right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling. The issue in this case was whether a directed verdict denied the Petitioner the right to a jury trial. The Seventh Amendment provides that "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..." The Amendment was enacted to prevent

neg: R v Latimer homicide, and at any rate found Tracy's death was worse than the pain Tracy might have felt during life. The Court went on to reject the argument that the trial was unfair because the chances of jury nullification were impaired by the judge. As the Court argued, there is no right to a trial in which one's chances of jury nullification are not impaired. Indeed, the justice system is not supposed to advocate jury nullification. Moreover, the judge's apparent suggestion that the jury might have some influence in determining the sentence was not considered misleading or unfair because, while juries

neg: R v Turpin appeal, the ruling was overturned. Justice Wilson, writing for the Court, dismissed the appeal and found that there was no violation. She found that section 11(f) did not protect selection of mode of trial, nor did it protect the right to trial by judge alone. On the equality issue she found that persons living outside of Alberta did not constitute a "disadvantaged group" as required in a successful claim. R v Turpin R v Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296 is a constitutional case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to trial by jury. The Court held that

neg: Jury trial or more. The Criminal Code also provides for the right to a jury trial for most indictable offences, including those punishable by less than five years' imprisonment, though the right is only constitutionally enshrined for those offences punishable by five years' imprisonment or more. Generally, it is the accused person who is entitled to elect whether their trial will proceed by judge alone or by judge and jury; however, for the most severe criminal offences—murder, treason, alarming Her Majesty, intimidating Parliament, inciting to mutiny, sedition, and piracy—trial by jury is mandatory unless the prosecution consents to trial by judge alone.

neg: United States constitutional criminal procedure defendant has a right to trial by jury. The defendant does not have a right, conversely, to a bench trial without the consent of the prosecution. If the defendant is charged with crimes for which the authorized sentence exceeds six months, whether in state or federal court, the defendant has a right to a jury. Further, the defendant has a right to a trial by jury if the actual sentence exceeds six months and the charged crime has no maximum authorized sentence (e.g. contempt of court). But, the defendant does not have a right to a jury in stacked misdemeanor

neg: Criminal law of Canada in the superior court. At this stage the trial court has all the authority to determine matters such as bail, preliminary motions, trial matters and the verdict. If the trial is by judge and jury, the jury has the ultimate authority to render a verdict but the trial judge has the authority over bail, pretrial motions and jury instructions. If the accused is found guilty the trial judge must determine a fit sentence. See Criminal sentencing in Canada. Where the trial is by judge alone, the judge will determine all facts which were proven and allow the parties to adduce

neg: Juries in the United States incapacitated and counsel for the defendant and the government agreed to continue with 11 jurors. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was acceptable if the prosecution and the court, as well as the defendant, agreed to this procedure. 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

neg: Jury trial rescission, and specific performance were all equitable remedies, and thus up to the judge's discretion, not a jury. In "Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover", , the US Supreme Court discussed the right to a jury, holding that when both equitable and legal claims are brought, the right to a jury trial still exists for the legal claim, which would be decided by a jury before the judge ruled on the equitable claim. There is not a United States constitutional right under the Seventh Amendment to a jury trial in state courts, but in practice, almost every state except Louisiana, which

neg: Jury trial a jury for 350 years was allowed to go ahead in 2009. Three previous trials of the defendants had been halted because of jury tampering, and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, cited cost and the additional burden on the jurors as reasons to proceed without a jury. Previously in cases where jury tampering was a concern the jurors were sometimes closeted in a hotel for the duration of the trial. However, Liberty director of policy Isabella Sankey said that "This is a dangerous precedent. The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures

neg: Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. the case back to the district court for a new trial. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., is a case where an appeals court found that although the plaintiff apparently deserved to prevail, it reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case for retrial because it found reversible error in the trial judges' instructions to the jury. The appellate court found that the judge's jury instructions, which included the statement that the labor of research by an author is protected by copyright, had been given in error. The court noted that plaintiff, over the

neg: McKeiver v. Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision stating that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for juveniles. In similar cases, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of North Carolina both affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no constitutional requirement for a jury trial for juvenile defendants. Although the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed by the U.S Constitution in these cases, states may, and some do, employ jury trials in juvenile proceedings if they wish to do so. Kansas is the first state in the U.S. to articulate that the right should

neg: Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover Federal Rules we cannot now anticipate, can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims." Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with jury trials in civil matters. The court held that where legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, the legal claims must be tried by a jury before the equitable claims can be resolved. The following explanation can be found at the Cornell Law School - Legal

neg: Ex parte Wood jury trial right in patent cases. In the 1995 case of "In re Lockwood", the Federal Circuit used it to distinguish invalidity proceedings from inequitable conduct proceedings, arguing that the proceedings under section 10 of the Patent Act of 1793 were more similar to proceedings of the inequitable conduct kind, and therefore the jury-trial right did not extend to modern invalidity proceedings. In 2005, the case was cited in Judge Pauline Newman's dissent in the Federal Circuit case of "In re Tech. Licensing Corp.", where the court eliminated the right to a jury trial when the validity of patent claims

neg: United States constitutional criminal procedure Rights have been incorporated to apply to the state governments. Several of these rights regulate pre-trial procedure: access to a non-excessive bail, the right to indictment by a grand jury, the right to an information (charging document), the right to a speedy trial, and the right to be tried in a specific venue. Several of these rights are trial rights: the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses at trial, the right to confront witnesses at trial, the right to a public trial, the right to a trial by an impartial petit jury selected from a specific geography, and the

neg: History of trial by jury in England 5 July 1641 repeats the clause on the right of a citizen to be judged by his peers: Abolition of the Star Chamber<br> "An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber. Many English colonies, including the Thirteen Colonies, which later became the United States, adopted the jury trial system. In 1670 two Quakers charged with unlawful assembly, William Penn and William Mead, were found not guilty at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey by a jury. The judge then imprisoned the jury without food, water, heat, or

neg: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights "problem" is that the third amendment, by and large, is the only one that is almost never violated by the states and Federal government; almost nobody is suing over the issue, so very few cases are being heard. The U.S. Supreme Court has never had a third amendment case appealed to it. Unreasonable search and seizure Warrant requirements Right to indictment by a grand jury Protection against double jeopardy Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination Protection against taking of private property without just compensation Right to a speedy trial Right to a public trial Right to trial by impartial jury Right to

neg: Jury trial criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by plea bargain. Both prosecutors and defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by negotiation resulting in a plea bargain. If the defendant waives a jury trial, a bench trial is held. For civil cases, a jury trial must be demanded within a certain period of time per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38. In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial. Per Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may

neg: Juries in the United States a jury trial on a minor misdemeanor or traffic offense would actually have a right to "two" trials if they wanted a jury trial on the issue, first by bench trial only in District court, and then, if they lost, to a "trial de novo" in Circuit court, this time with a jury if they chose to do so. Many juvenile court systems do not recognize a right to jury trial, on the grounds that juvenile proceedings are civil rather than criminal, and that jury trials would cause the process to become adversarial. In the cases "Apprendi v. New Jersey",

neg: Jury trial the register of voters. In the past an unanimous verdict was required. This has been changed so that, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10-2 majority. This was designed to make it more difficult for jury tampering to succeed. In 1999 the then Home Secretary Jack Straw introduced a controversial bill to limit the right to trial by jury. This became the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which sought to remove the right to trial by jury for cases involving jury tampering or complex

neg: Ludwig v. Massachusetts trial, Ludwig waived a jury and, after trial by the court, again was adjudged guilty, and again was fined $20. Ludwig appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Massachusetts Court held that Ludwig was not deprived of his right to a jury trial nor was he twice put in jeopardy. Ludwig raised two issues on appeal, both of which the Supreme Court of the United States reasoned separately. The Court determined whether Ludwig’s right to a jury trial was infringed by first viewing the right in light of the common-law

neg: Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms jury. The Supreme Court found the erosion of the secrecy of the jury would have a negative impact on the ability of a jury to decide a case and would affect an individual's right to jury trial under section 11(f) of the "Charter". It is required under the principles of fundamental justice to have an impartial jury. Section 11(g) provides that This right prohibits "ex post facto law", meaning that it requires that in order for a person's action or lack thereof to be considered a crime, the action must have already been criminalized before the person committed it. Still,

neg: Duncan v. Louisiana impose on the States the rules that may be in force in the federal courts except where such rules are also found to be essential to basic fairness. The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of Duncan by arguing that the right to a jury trial in criminal cases was fundamental and central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to honor requests for jury trials. The Court maintained the common-law exception for "petty crimes," which are defined as those punishable by a maximum of a $500 fine and

neg: Jury 75), although the trial may continue with as few as 9. The right to a jury trial has been enshrined in English law since Magna Carta in 1215, and is most common in serious cases, although the defendant can insist on a jury trial for most criminal cases. Jury trials in complex fraud cases have been described by some members and appointees of the Labour Party as expensive and time-consuming. In contrast, the Bar Council, Liberty and other political parties have supported the idea that trial by jury is at the heart of the judicial system and placed the blame

neg: United States v. Jackson sentence the defendant to death if the jury recommends it. Sentencing in American courts has long been the right of the sitting judge and not the jury. While the jury may make recommendations the court found that the Congress has overstepped when it gave that power solely to the jury. The court also objected, as the District Court had, that the Act could punish a defendant for asserting their right to a jury trial. Under the Act, a defendant who pleads guilty cannot be sentenced to death, since no jury has the chance to recommend the death penalty. However, if

neg: Judicially Murdered guilty, but since it is not a unanimous decision, the jury is hung, and a new trial is set for a later date in Olympia. Leschi is sent back to the jail house, where he stays until his next trial. During this time, Devin visits frequently to keep Leschi company. Leschi then learns that Quiemuth had been murdered. After a few months, the second trial convenes, and after a short deliberation by the jury, Leschi is found guilty of killing Moses Abraham, and sentenced to death by hanging. Leschi is still held in jail, awaiting his hanging. While the hanging

neg: Juries in the United States that in complex litigation, the jury's inability to comprehend the issues may cause the 7th Amendment right to conflict with due process rights and authorize the judge to strike the jury. The right to trial by jury in bankruptcy cases has been described as unclear. In "Colgrove v. Battin", the Supreme Court held that a civil jury of six members did not violate the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in a civil case. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action - the civil action[,]" which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. Today, in

neg: Lawsuit a trial by jury or the case may proceed as a bench trial. A bench trial is only heard by the judge if the parties waive a jury trial or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction. Usually, lawsuits end in a settlement, with an empirical analysis finding that less than 2% of cases end with a trial. It is sometimes said that 95% of cases end in settlement; few jurisdictions report settlements, but empirical analysis suggests that

neg: Tort reform to $1.2 billion by the judge. It is argued by some that extraordinary damage awards in the United States are a result of the jury system. In federal courts in the United States, the right to a jury trial in most civil cases is entrenched in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many state constitutions have similar clauses to protect the right to a jury trial in state court proceedings. In many countries, particularly in continental Europe, juries are not used at all even in criminal cases due to the cost of protracted trials necessitated with a jury

neg: Jury trial such cases. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, he may waive his right to have a jury, but both the government (prosecution) and court must consent to the waiver. Several states require jury trials for all crimes, "petty" or not. 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

neg: Verdict "not guilty". The prosecution may never seek a directed verdict of guilty, as the defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense and rebut the prosecution's case and have a jury determine guilt or innocence (where a defendant has waived his/her right to a jury trial and allowed the judge to render the verdict, this still applies). In the American legal system, the concept of directed verdict has largely been replaced by judgment as a matter of law. A general verdict is one in which the jury makes a complete finding and single conclusion on all issues presented to

neg: Agnes of God She had covered up the pregnancy by wearing the traditional nun's habit. The baby was found dead in her small convent room in a waste basket, asphyxiated. The police found ticket stubs and other information in the nun's room indicating that precisely nine months earlier she had traveled out of state to an educational conference. During the trial, the father of the baby was never named. At her trial, Sister Maureen waived her right to a jury, and Judge Hyman Maas presided. The trial was over in ten days, and Maas found the nun not guilty of all charges by

neg: William Palmer (murderer) his being force fed. An Act of Parliament (the Central Criminal Court Act 1856) was passed to allow the trial to be held at The Old Bailey in London, as it was felt that a fair jury could not be found in Staffordshire, where detailed accounts of the case and the deaths of his children were printed by local newspapers. However, an alternative hypothesis is that Palmer was a popular figure in Rugeley and would not have been found guilty by a Staffordshire jury: the implication being that the trial location was moved for political reasons so as to secure

neg: R v Turpin R v Turpin R v Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296 is a constitutional case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to trial by jury. The Court held that the requirement for a murder trial to be conducted in front of a judge and jury did not violate the right to trial by jury under s 11(f) of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", nor the equality guarantee under s 15 of the Charter. Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui were tried for first degree murder in Ontario. The "Criminal Code" at that time required that all murder

neg: Calvin Pease After Statehood for Ohio, he was elected president-judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the Third Circuit. While Pease was Judge of the Third Circuit, the Legislature passed a law that "justices of the peace should have jurisdiction in civil cases to the amount of $50, without the right of trial by jury." Pease held that this was in conflict with the United States Constitution, which stated "in suits of common law when the value shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," and the State Constitution, which stated "the right of trial by jury

neg: Bills reported as inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 the length of the maximum sentence. Offences punishable by less than three months in prison are not required to have a jury trial, but offences punishable by more than three months in prison have the right to a jury trial. This right is enshrined in section 24(e) of the Bill of Rights. The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill proposes to raise the threshold for access to a jury trial from offences with a maximum sentence of three "months" in prison to offences with a maximum sentence of three "years" in prison. The bill includes a provision to amend the

neg: Virginia Civil Procedure and where proper venue lies. See Service of process in Virginia. Several kinds of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are available in Virginia, including what is known as a "summary jury trial". Virginia has enacted a form of the Uniform Arbitration Act. If a defendant fails to file a responsive pleading within 21 days from service or after decision on preliminary motions, the defendant will be deemed to be "in default." That defendant is also deemed to have waived his right to a jury trial. In order for a plaintiff to obtain a default judgment, she must apply to the trial

neg: Juries in the United States and civil liberty." Nearly every state constitution contains a similar guarantee. 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. The decision in "Rachal v. Hill", indicated that 7th Amendment right to jury trial

neg: Ex parte Wood and possession. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars, the constitution has secured to the citizens a trial by jury. [...] It is not lightly to be presumed, therefore, that Congress, in a class of cases placed peculiarly within its patronage and protection, involving some of the dearest and most valuable rights which society acknowledges, and the constitution itself means to favour, would institute a new and summary process, which should finally adjudge upon those rights, without a trial by jury, without a right of appeal, and without any of those guards with which,

neg: Jury tool is rarely used. For example, a judge might seat an advisory jury to guide the judge in awarding non-economic damages (such as "pain and suffering" damages) in a case where there is no right to a jury trial, such as (depending on state law) a case involving "equitable" rather than "legal" claims. In Canada, juries are also allowed to make suggestions for sentencing periods at the time of sentencing. The suggestions of the jury are presented before the judge by the Crown prosecutor(s) before the sentence is handed down. In a small number of U.S. jurisdictions, including the states

neg: Insular Cases collected from Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court set alternative precedents in "Downes v. Bidwell" (1901) and "De Lima v. Bidwell" (1901) based on the differing interpretation of the Uniformity Clause of the United States Constitution and the subsequent implications of these rulings. In "Balzac v. Puerto Rico" (1922), the Supreme Court found that Puerto Ricans, extended statutory citizenship by the Jones Act (1917), are not guaranteed a trial by jury, an inherent aspect of the United States Constitution. Similarly, in "Dorr v. United States" (1904), the Supreme Court ruled against right to trial by jury for Philippines residents, another unincorporated

neg: Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., is a case where an appeals court found that although the plaintiff apparently deserved to prevail, it reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case for retrial because it found reversible error in the trial judges' instructions to the jury. The appellate court found that the judge's jury instructions, which included the statement that the labor of research by an author is protected by copyright, had been given in error. The court noted that plaintiff, over the objection of the defense, had urged the district court judge to

neg: Jury trial 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. English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury. In the United States, it is understood that juries usually weigh the evidence and testimony to

neg: Jury trial jury trial; rather, it preserves the right to jury trial in the federal courts that existed in 1791 at common law. In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England. 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. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action—the civil action", which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is

neg: R v Turpin cases were to be tried in front of a judge and jury. Turpin and Siddiqui challenged the constitutionality of the provisions on two grounds. First, they claimed that section 11(f) of the "Charter" granted them a right to choose between judge alone or judge and jury, which was violated by the Code provisions. Second, they argued that since there is an exception to the Code provisions for trials in Alberta, there was a violation of their right to equality under section 15 of the "Charter". At trial, the judge found that the provisions were unconstitutional for violating both sections. On

neg: George Tod (judge) of $50, without the right of trial by jury." In "Rutherford v. M'Fadden", Pease held that this was in conflict with the United States Constitution, which stated "in suits of common law when the value shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," and the State Constitution, which stated "the right of trial by jury shall be inviolate." This decision established judicial review of legislative decisions. Supreme Court Judges George Tod and Samuel H. Huntington upheld Pease's decision, and all three were impeached by the legislature. Huntington's case was dropped when he resigned to become Governor,

neg: History of trial by jury in England introduced what is now known as the "grand jury", through his Grand Assize. 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. Under the jury, the chances of being found guilty were much lower, as the king did not choose verdict (or punishment). The Church banned participation of clergy in trial by ordeal in 1215. Without the legitimacy of religion, trial by

neg: State court (United States) personal injury cases, and most of the rest involve breaches of contracts. In states where a state constitution provides for a right to a jury trial, or a right to open courts, this has sometimes been interpreted to confer not only a procedural right to a certain type of trial, but also a substantive right to have redress through the courts for the kinds of injuries that were compensable at common law. Prior to trial, most proceedings in non-criminal courts are conducted via papers filed in the court, often through lawyers. In limited jurisdiction courts, it is not uncommon for

neg: Advisory jury Procedure 39(c)(1) authorized the in any action not triable of right by a jury the court on motion or on its own may have any issue tried by an advisory jury. Advisory jury An advisory jury is a group installed by a judge to give him or her an opinion during a trial. Unlike the normal jury, the advisory jury opinion is non-binding, and the judge remains the "final arbitrator of fact and law". In United States Federal Court, a case may be tried by advisory jury in the case of "an action not triable of right by a jury".

neg: Jury trial by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." In Joseph Story's 1833 treatise "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", he wrote, "[I]t is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty." The Seventh Amendment does not guarantee or create any right to a

neg: Ludwig v. Massachusetts for a “speedy trial by jury,” citing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The motion was denied, and, after a brief trial, the court adjudged Ludwig guilty and imposed a fine of $20. Thereafter, Ludwig asserted his statutory right to a trial De novo before a six-man jury in the District Court. In the De novo proceeding, Ludwig filed a “motion to dismiss” on the grounds that he had been deprived of his federal constitutional right to a speedy jury trial in the first instance, and that he had been subjected to double jeopardy. The motion was denied. At the second

neg: Sherwood v. Walker instruct the jury that the defendants had a right to rescind the contract "if they found that the cow was sold ... upon the understanding of both parties that she was barren, and useless for the purpose of breeding..." Ultimately, after a second trial, the jury entered another verdict for the plaintiff. If it is assumed that the trial court proceeded in accordance with the appellate decision, the second jury's verdict indicates a factual finding that any mistake concerning the cow's fertility was unilateral, not mutual. Thus, in the end, Sherwood (the buyer) returned the cow and the contract was

neg: Brandon Hein them of their right to a fair trial. Jason Holland admitted stabbing both McLoren and Farris. On May 28, 1996 the jury found the four defendants guilty of burglary, attempted robbery, and murder committed during the course of a burglary and an attempted robbery, that is, felony murder. In addition, Jason Holland was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. The jury also found the allegations of special circumstances to be true, and found the murder, burglary and attempted robbery to be of the first degree. The four were sentenced to state prison as follows: Christopher Velardo pleaded guilty separately

neg: Jury trial deliberation were to occur. Austria, in common with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains elements of trial by jury in serious criminal cases. Belgium, in common with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains the trial by jury through the Court of Assize for serious criminal cases and for political crimes and for press delicts (except those based on racism or xenophobia), and for crimes of international law, such as genocide and crime against humanity. Under Canadian law, a person has the constitutional right to a jury trial for all crimes punishable by five years of imprisonment

neg: John Almon John Almon John Almon (17 December 1737 – 12 December 1805) was an English journalist and writer on political subjects, notable for his efforts to secure the right to publish reports on the debates in Parliament. He was born in Liverpool and came to London, where in 1761 he was a reporter for the "Gazetteer", and published "A Review of Mr. Pitt's Administration", which was popular with the opposition. In 1770 he reprinted a letter of "Junius", for which he was put on trial and by a jury found guilty, although it is unclear what, if anything, was his punishment.

neg: People v. Newton in failing to instruct the jury on unconsciousness. Instead, the Court concluded that "evidence of both states is not antithetical; jury instructions on the effect of both will be required where the evidence supports a finding of either." Thus, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to consider the possibility that Newton was unconscious at the time of the shooting, thereby lacking the requisite mental state—mens rea—to commit any crime at all. Finally, the Court found the possibility of additional prejudicial error given the trial court's apparent invitation to the defense to choose between a jury instruction

neg: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred Right to notice of accusations Right to confront adverse witnesses Right to compulsory process (subpoenas) to obtain witness testimony Right to assistance of counsel Right to jury trial in civil cases Re-Examination Clause Protection against excessive bail Protection against excessive fines Protection against cruel and unusual punishments A similar legal doctrine to incorporation is that of reverse incorporation. Whereas incorporation applies the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in reverse incorporation, the Equal Protection Clause of the

neg: Jury system. Article 38 of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland mandates trial by jury for criminal offenses, with exceptions for minor offences, military tribunals, and where "the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order". "DPP v McNally" sets out that a jury has the right to reach a not guilty verdict even in direct contradiction of the evidence. The principal statute regulating the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the Juries Act 1976 as amended by the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. There is a fine of

neg: Article One of the Constitution of Georgia (U.S. State) civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts. (b) A trial jury shall consist of 12 persons; but the General Assembly may prescribe any number, not less than six, to constitute a trial jury in courts of limited jurisdiction and in superior courts in misdemeanor cases. (c) The General Assembly shall provide by law for the selection and compensation

neg: Jury trial contend that the guilty-plea system unfairly coerces defendants into relinquishing their right to a jury trial. Others contend that there never was a golden age of jury trials, but rather that juries in the early nineteenth century (before the rise of plea bargaining) were "unwitting and reflexive, generally wasteful of public resources and, because of the absence of trained professionals, little more than slow guilty pleas themselves", and that the guilty-plea system that emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century was a superior, more cost-effective method of achieving fair outcomes. In countries where jury trials are common, juries

neg: Jury trial Korea". Many complex commercial cases are prosecuted in the District Court rather than before a jury in the High Court. In 2009, Lily Chiang, former chairwoman of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, lost an application to have her case transferred from the District Court to the High Court for a jury trial. Justice Wright in the Court of First Instance held that there was no absolute right to a trial by jury and that the "decision as to whether an indictable offence be tried in the Court of First Instance by a judge and jury or in the

neg: History of trial by jury in England to as "Bushel's Case", and is a landmark case that established beyond question the independence of the jury in the English legal system. There is a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey to this effect, praising the courage and endurance of Bushel and the other jurymen. Jury trials in criminal cases were a protected right in the original US Constitution. The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution extended the rights to trial by jury to both criminal and civil matters, and a grand jury for serious cases. Women first served on juries in England in

neg: Jury trial of England", he tells something of the powers that the kings had accumulated in the times after the Magna Carta, the prerogatives of the crown and the sources of great power with which these monarchs counted: The first paragraph of the Act that abolished the Star Chamber repeats the clause on the right of a citizen to be judged by his peers: In 1670 two Quakers charged with unlawful assembly, William Penn and William Mead, were found not guilty by a jury. The judge then fined the jury for contempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own

neg: 21 July 2005 London bombings trial photographs of five of the accused on a camping trip in the lake district. It is said that the men were running up and down the hill in an "organised way". In the second week of the trial the jury was told that almost 200 hydrogen peroxide bottles were found in bins at the block of flats where the suspects are accused of making the devices. The prosecution claims that fingerprints belonging to defendants were found on the bottles. The jury were shown two videos which were allegedly found in homes of the defendants: footage on the tapes shows an

neg: Gun Court of jury trial has also been criticized by attorney and law professor David Rowe, the son of the Appeals Court justice who wrote the decision in the "Stone" case upholding the practice. Rowe argues that the common-law right to a jury trial is implied in the Constitutional provision for "a fair hearing within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court established by law," concluding that the Constitution had been "shorn of its most potent and ancient safeguard, trial by jury." The 1993 County Report on Human Rights Practices in Jamaica from the United States Department of State noted

neg: Jury nullification convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general, or of the way the law is applied in particular cases. There have also been cases where the jury has refused to convict due to their own prejudices (for example, about the race of one of the parties in the case). Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial, which undermines the law. Some view it as a violation

neg: Jury trial other state, a Not Guilty verdict may be reached in any case (murder included) by a vote of 10 to 2 or 11 to 1. In civil cases, the law (or the agreement of the parties) may permit a non-unanimous verdict. A jury's deliberations are conducted in private, out of sight and hearing of the judge, litigants, witnesses, and others in the courtroom. Not every case is eligible for a jury trial. In the majority of U.S. states, there is no right to a jury trial in family law actions not involving a termination of parental rights, such as divorce

neg: Jury nullification by a number of notable exceptions. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime. The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of Lilburne's trial: In 1653, Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he had committed. The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty

neg: Rofecoxib scientific evidence linking rofecoxib to cardiac events with short durations of use. The jury ruled that Merck had adequately warned doctors and patients of the drug's risk. The first federal trial on rofecoxib, "Plunkett v. Merck", began on November 29, 2005 in Houston. The trial ended on December 12, 2005 when Judge Eldon E. Fallon of U.S. District Court declared a mistrial because of a hung jury with an eight to one majority, favoring the defense. Upon retrial in February 2006 in New Orleans, where the Vioxx multidistrict litigation (MDL) is based, a jury found Merck not liable, even though