Origins
The jury emerged in medieval England as a mechanism for gathering information and resolving disputes. Earlier practices involved oath-helping (supporters swearing to a party’s truthfulness) and ordeals (divine revelation through physical tests). Henry II’s judicial reforms (1166) introduced the presenting jury—locals who reported crimes to royal justices—and gradually expanded jury use for fact-finding in civil and criminal cases. The trial jury evolved from information-gatherers who knew local facts to fact-finders who heard evidence and rendered verdicts based on what they learned in court.
The jury became a valued right through struggles between crown and subjects. Magna Carta (1215) guaranteed judgment by peers. The trial of William Penn (1670) established that juries could not be punished for their verdicts—jury nullification became possible. Colonial Americans saw jury trial as protection against imperial tyranny; both the Constitution (1788) and Bill of Rights (1791) guaranteed jury rights. The jury thus developed political significance beyond its judicial function: citizen participation in judgment symbolized popular sovereignty and protected against government overreach.
The form spread from England but never became universal. British colonies adopted jury trial; the United States made it constitutionally central. But civil law systems developed without juries, relying on professional judges for fact-finding. Some common law jurisdictions have reduced jury use. International courts lack juries. The jury remains distinctively Anglo-American, valued by its supporters as democratic participation and criticized by detractors as amateur interference in professional adjudication.
Structure & Function
The trial jury comprises lay citizens summoned to decide factual questions in legal proceedings. Jury size varies: traditional common law used twelve; modern practice includes smaller juries in some contexts. Selection involves summoning potential jurors from the community, questioning them for bias (voir dire), and allowing parties to challenge and remove jurors. The resulting jury should represent the community and be capable of impartial judgment.
Jury deliberation follows evidence presentation and legal instruction. Jurors hear testimony, view exhibits, and receive the judge’s explanation of applicable law. They then deliberate privately, discussing evidence and applying law to reach a verdict. Unanimous verdicts were traditionally required; some jurisdictions now permit majority verdicts. The verdict—guilty/not guilty in criminal cases, liable/not liable in civil cases—constitutes the jury’s finding, usually without explanation of reasoning.
The jury’s role is typically limited to fact-finding; judges decide legal questions. This division allocates questions about what happened to lay jurors and questions about legal standards to trained judges. The division is imperfect: jurors inevitably make some legal judgments in applying law to facts, and instructions may be incomprehensible. The possibility of nullification—acquitting despite evidence of guilt—gives juries power beyond strict fact-finding. These features make the jury both democratically valuable and procedurally complicated.
Historical Significance
The jury institutionalized lay participation in legal judgment, expressing the principle that communities should judge their members. This participation served multiple functions: bringing community knowledge and values into adjudication, checking governmental power, legitimating verdicts through peer judgment, and educating citizens about legal processes. The jury made justice partly a community enterprise rather than purely official function.
Jury trial became a bulwark of civil liberty, particularly in Anglo-American constitutionalism. The right to jury trial ranked among the rights that colonists claimed against Britain and that constitutions protected. Juries could protect individuals against unjust prosecution; they could refuse to enforce unpopular laws; they provided buffer between state power and individual liberty. This protective function made the jury significant beyond its technical role in fact-finding.
Contemporary jury systems face practical challenges. Jury service burdens citizens; many seek exemption. Complex cases may exceed lay comprehension. Bias—conscious and unconscious—affects jury judgment. Costs and delays discourage jury trials; most criminal cases settle through plea bargains, most civil cases settle or are decided by judges. Yet jury trial persists where constitutionally required, and proponents continue defending its democratic value. Whether the jury remains viable in modern legal systems or gradually succumbs to efficiency pressures remains an open question.
Key Developments
- 1166: Assize of Clarendon; Henry II establishes presenting jury
- 1215: Magna Carta guarantees judgment by peers
- 1219: Fourth Lateran Council abolishes ordeals; jury trial expands
- 1352: Statute separates presenting (grand) and trial (petit) juries
- 1670: Bushel’s Case; jurors cannot be punished for verdicts
- 1735: Zenger trial; jury nullification in seditious libel
- 1788: US Constitution guarantees jury trial in criminal cases
- 1791: Sixth and Seventh Amendments guarantee jury rights
- 1864: Civil jury trial diminishes in England
- 1898: Jury system introduced in Japan (later suspended)
- 1933: Nazi Germany abolishes jury; never restored
- 1968: Duncan v. Louisiana; jury right applied to states
- 1970: Williams v. Florida; six-person jury permitted
- 1975: Taylor v. Louisiana; women must be eligible for juries
- 2009: Japan introduces lay judge system
- 2020s: Debates over jury demographics and bias continue