Investigating The Issue Of Tampering

Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.

Keeping this in mind, we need to come to an understanding that being in a jury carries a lot of weight because a decision we make will bring forth life changing consequences. The prosecutors in this case believe that Katherine was beaten by Michael in an act of malice. In an effort to support their case, they have presented evidence that

Miscarriage of justice is not just framed around contaminated evidence but also by the fact that juries misinterpret information and instructions which result in an incorrect verdict. Voting for the verdict previously had to be unanimous until 2006, when the Juries (Amendment) Act 2006 (NSW). Although majority verdict allows for quicker and easier verdicts, less pressure to conform and eliminates a rogue juror, there has been much criticism as the point of the trial to prove standard of proof that the accused

According to the authors, which of the following suggestions has NOT been offered to permit trial jurors to play a more active role in a trial?

To begin with, Bias in the court room can be many things: Race, Religion, Sex, etc. For example, In the case: Rodriguez v. Colorado Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez was charged with sexual assault. According to the article, "Racial bias in the jury room..." the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez despite evidence that a juror said, "I think he did it because he's Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want." Mr. Rodriguez was accused of making sexual advances toward two teenage girls in the bathroom of a horse-racing track. The juror, H.C., was a former law enforcement officer who also said during deliberations that "where he used to patrol, nine times out of 10 Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive

In Reginald Rose’s play “12 Angry Men” Juror 4 demonstrates both positive and negative aspects of a jury system. Juror 4 uses logical facts and evidence to make decisions and determine the verdict, while also listening to the opinions of other jurors. Juror 4 has expressed more positive traits than negative and shows how fast concrete evidence can change the decisions of a person. Juror 4’s beliefs in concrete evidence show how jurors should show the benefits of a jury system. On the other hand, Juror 4 manifests the importance of viewing a case with a neutral mindset.

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

“A jury’s vote is supposed to be secret. Serving on a jury forces a man to make up his mind and declare himself about something. Men don’t like to do that. Sometimes it’s unpleasant.” (p297) This quote explains the situation the jury had to go through in To Kill a Mockingbird. Many of the

Jurors can sometimes be easily influenced by the slightest gesture from the court. Whether it be a nod of the head, a smile, a frown, or a spoken word. In a criminal jury trial, like all human beings, judges develop certain beliefs about the defendant's guilt or innocence. Sometimes these beliefs often conveyed as "self-fulfilling prophecies" are communicated by subtle, nonverbal behaviors that influence the appearance of fairness and actual justice in the courtroom. Judges do all kinds of things when they are presiding over trials that are not really good, and that could lead toward this tendency of depriving individuals of fair trials because of their body language and what they are communicating to jurors (Blanck,

Many professionals and legal experts such as Sir Oliver Popplewell and Sir Louis Blom-Cooper argue against the archaic system of juries and their futility in the legal system, with Auberon Waugh stating that: 'we know as a nation that we are no longer fit for jury service'. There are four main arguments for the abolition of juries: people lack the expertise to reliably assess the evidence, certain jury members may dominate the jury with people’s personalities and emotions influencing the verdict, the internet is now corrupting the system, and the exorbitant costs of the jury. Without a doubt, there is the problem of jury tampering, however this is exists very rarely, and is usually identified. Therefore,

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

In a trial by jury, the judge and jury hear the case. The way in which juries are and operate is governed by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The adversarial system ensured that just outcomes would be achieved within the jury system through the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) as this changed the juries verdict from unanimous to majority. Despite there being arguments that suggest majority verdicts compromise the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, in that there is one juror who had doubt, the jury system ultimately achieves just outcomes for all parties involved as to date there have been no reported cases of injustices occurring as a result of it. These beliefs are reflected through the “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001) as this article said that most jurors are able to understand the duty that they must perform and also that there should be no doubt that the media may influence the juries decision.

The judicial system has an incredible number of rules about what is allowed and when, with the goal to set up the most fair process possible. One of the main preconditions of the U.S. legal system is the objectivity of jurors to the information about a trial or the involved parties. The jurors should not seek any information outside of the courtroom under any circumstances or subject themselves to any information that is not precisely presented by the defendants or plaintiffs. Breaking those rules would classify jurors as prejudicial.

The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.