DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNMENT
Topic: Jury in the United States

HANOI, 11/2023
 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Lecturer’s
Studen
Studen Leader’s Review
Full Name Duty t
t code Review
signed Lecture
Mark
r
The history of the
United States jury
Nguyen
1 473101 (1.3) A
Minh Thu
Introduction and
Conclusion
Selection process of
the United States jury
Vu Ha Bao (2.1) and The jury trial
2 473118 A
Chau (2.2)
Powerpoint

Importance of jury
duty (3.1) and The jury
Do Minh
3 473119 in comparison with the A
Duyen
judge (3.2)
Synthesize document
Concept of jury (1.1),
Types of the United
Duong
States jury (1.2), and
4 470355 Xuan A
Roles of the United
Khanh
States jury (1.4)
Powerpoint
Hanoi, Octorber 29, 2023
LEADER
MUC LUC
 INTRODUCTION

In the realm of justice, the jury stands as one of the most recognizable and
significant components of the legal system. The responsibilities of the jury are
extensive, requiring careful evaluation of evidence and testimony, consideration of
legal instructions, and reaching a unanimous or majority decision. Through their
deliberations, juries contribute to the final determination of guilt or innocence,
making them powerful decision-makers within the legal system. The concept of a
jury trial was first introduced in the American colonies in 1638, when the
Massachusetts Bay Colony established a jury system for criminal cases. Over time,
the use of juries spread to other colonies and eventually became a cornerstone of
the US legal system after independence. The right to a trial by jury is enshrined in
the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the accused the
right to have their guilt or innocence determined by a panel of impartial jurors.
This essay delves deep into the concept, types and history of the jury in the US, as
well as show their function in various trials and selection, we hope to underline the
importance of the jury’s duty and the necessity of its coexistence with the other
integral part of the juridical system of the US.

BODY
1. Overview of jury in United States
1.1. Concept of jury
The jury system in the United States is a key component of the United
States’s democracy and freedom. A jury is a group of people empowered to make
findings of fact and render a verdict for a trial. The judges decide questions of law,
including whether particular items of evidence will be presented to the jury.
 1.2. Types of the United States jury
There are two types of juries serving different functions in the trial courts:
petit jury and grand jury.
Petit jury, which is also known as trial jury, is comprised of 6-12 people.
Petit jury is a trial jury for both criminal and civil cases. In a criminal case, a petit
jury decides whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant committed the crime as charged. In a civil case, a petit jury decides
whether the plaintiff establishes with evidence that is more likely than not, known
in legal terms as a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant injured the
plaintiff in some way that requires appropriate compensation. This is a much lower
standard of proof than in a criminal trial since no party’s freedom is at issue in civil
matters.
Grand jury consists of 16-23 grand juros and grand jurors generally serve up
to 18 months. However, a grand jury can serve for up to 24 months if an extension
is granted by a judge. Grand jury only focuses on preliminary criminal matters and
assesses evidence presented by a prosecutor to determine whether there is
“probable cause” to believe an individual committed a crime and should be put on
trial. If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, an indictment will be
issued against the individual. Unlike petit juries, grand juries do not meet every
day, instead meeting in any number of calendar combinations throughout their
term. For instance, a grand jury in a smaller district may meet only one day every
week, while a grand jury in a large district with significant criminal investigations
may gather for a couple of days each week over the course of the term.
1.3. The history of the United State jury
The right to a trial by jury is deeply embedded in the American democratic
ethos. It is estimated that about 80% of all jury trials worldwide take place in the
United States. To understand why the jury plays an important role in the legal
system of the United States, we need to know how it originated.
The British rulers started establishing colonies in America in the early
1600s. The majority of the settlements had formed into 13 British colonies by the
1700s. Obviously, the colonists’ tendency was to base their law on those of the
mother country. Thus, at this time, the English common law and British
parliamentary statutes were the foundation for early Colonial law. However,
governors and administrators tended to treat the colonists unfairly. When American
colonists realized that their benefits were badly affected by the colonial authorities,
they started to form their perspectives about justice and law. And the jury itself
became a ready-made vehicle for implementing revolutionary ideas and principles.
Not surprisingly, after the Revolution, the importance of the jury was truly
recognized by the Americans. After experiencing oppression and exploitation, the
jury became a crucial instrument that helped to protect Americans’ legitimate
rights and interests. For the remainder of the 18th century and the first half of the
19th century, the jury occupied an important position of exalted status in the
American mind. As a result, Article III of the United States Constitution (1787)
stated that all trials must be conducted by jury. As stated 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”, the Sixth Amendment to the United State Constitution (1791)
expanded this right. In addition, a jury trial in civil proceedings is guaranteed by
the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, in other
countries which follow the common law tradition such as England, Wales and
Scotland, trials by jury are not as common as in the United States. Blackstone, one
of the 18th-century English scholars, assumed that jury trial was a privilege, not a
right for all citizens.
 Starting from Mother England, however, the American jury showed a lot of
differences. In the United States, before officially attending the courts, prospective
jurors have to go through the voir dire. In this process, prospective jurors will be
questioned by the judge and attorneys in order to decide whether they have
personal interests or prejudices in a case. This phase is normally absent in England.
Moreover, the American jury has more power than the English jury because they
have the right to decide whether or not the death penalty should be given to
persons convicted of first-degree murder and also the length of sentences.
1.4. Roles of the United States jury
1.4.1. Petit jury
In a criminal case, the petit jury listens to evidence offered during a trial and
returns a verdict which will find the defendant guilty or not guilty. The judge in a
criminal case tells the jury what the law is and the jury must decide what the true
facts are. On that basis, the jury has only to decide whether the defendant is guilty
or not guilty of each offense charged. On the other hand, to have an impartial
verdict as to guilt or innocence of jury defendant, the jury is not to consider a
sentence but must consider separately each of the charges against the defendant,
after which it may find the person: not guilty of any of the charges, guilty of all the
charges or guilty of some of the charges and not guilty of others.
In a civil case, the role of petit jury in civil case is similar to a criminal case
but also has a diffrence in the verdict, a verdict in a civil case may be a finding for
the plaintiff or for the defendant. To understand the role of a petit juries, we will
have an example of the kind of civil case jurors in a United States District Court
that help
Decide. The example is about the case John Smith v XY Company. John
Smith is called the plaintiff, the person who begins the case and the XY Company
is the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant are the parties. The main intension
about the case is about the plaintiff, John Smith, states his claim in a paper called
the complaint and the defendant, XY Company, replies to the complaint in a paper
called the answer. The complaint and the answer are the main pleadings in the
case. The points in the pleadings about which the parties disagree make up the
issues of fact and law so the jury in the case must listen to the pleadings of the two
plaintiff and defendant to return a verdict.
1.4.2. Grand jury
A grand jury only hears criminal matters and not decide guilt or innocence.
The grand jury’s function is to decide whether the person being investigated by the
government shall be tried for a serious federal crime claimed to have been
committed within the district where it sits. Matters may be brought to its attention
in three ways: By the government attorney; By the court that impaneled it; and
from the personal knowledge of a member of the grand jury or from matters
properly brought to a member’s personal attention. In all these cases, the grand
jury must hear evidence before taking action. After it has received evidence against
the person being investigated, the grand jury must decide whether the evidence
presented justifies an indictment, or “true bill,” which is the formal criminal charge
returned by the grand jury. Upon the indictment’s being filed in court, that person
must either plead guilty or nolo contendere, or stand trial. If the evidence does not
persuade the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe the person being
investigated committed a crime, the grand jury will vote a “no bill,” or “not a true
bill.” When this occurs, that person is not required to plead to a criminal charge,
and no trial is required.
Beside that, both petit jury and grand jury must follow a principle is that the
jury’s responsibility is considering the facts of the case, bearing in mind the
judge’s directions on the law and deciding whether any offense has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The judge is entitled to assist the jury in understanding
the facts revealed by the evidence. However, jurors only bear responsibility to
determine the facts of the matter.
2.1. Selection process of the United States jury
2.2.1. Juror qualifications
If citizens want to become jurors, first of all, they have to meet qualifications
from the court, which vary from different countries. In the United States, to be
legally qualified for jury service, citizens have to meet the following
qualifications:
o An individual must be a United States citizen;
o An individual must be at least 18 years of age;
o An individual has resided primarily in the judicial district for at least
one year at the time of completion of the qualification questionnaire;
o An individual must be able to adequately read, write, understand, and
speak the English language;
o An individual has no disqualifying mental or physical condition that
cannot be addressed with an accommodation;
o An individual must not currently be subject to felony charges
punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
o An individual never has been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights
have been legally restored or never were lost in the jurisdiction of
conviction).
2.2.2. Exemption and excuses
Exemption from jury service means that a person will not be served a
summons or subpoena. There are three following occupational groups that are
exempt from serving on the United States federal jury service. People who work
full-time in any of these three areas are prohibited from serving on federal juries
even if they are qualified:
 o Members of the armed forces and national guard when on active
duty;
o Members of non-federal professional (as opposed to volunteer) fire
and police departments; and
o “Public officers” of federal, state, or local governments – persons
either elected to public office or appointed by someone elected to
public office - who are actively engaged full-time in the performance
of public duties.
Not only federal courts but state courts also offer permanent excuses from
jury service relying on individual requests. Any of the following individuals are
eligible to serve on juries in both civil and criminal cases, but upon their requests,
they are exempt from jury duty: persons over age 70, persons who have served on
a federal court, a county court or a district court within 24 months, ... In addition to
these general regulations which can be found in all states’ laws, there are others
varying from state to state.
2.2.3. Jury selection process
Step 1: Random selection of prospective jurors
In the United States, prospective jurors are randomly selected among the
community using the “jury pool" or the “jury wheel" (also known as the venire).
The jury pool is a database containing a special number of names of district
residents from which jurors may be selected for trials to which the pool relates.
Voter registrations and driver licenses or renewals of identification cards (ID
renewals) are used to construct a jury pool. Federal jurors are randomly selected
from this jury pool if they are considered qualified and necessary for the court’s
trial schedule. Thus, these prospective jurors are summoned to appear for a jury
selection at a later date.
Step 2: The jury box
 Being summoned to serve on a jury does not mean that an individual will
certainly be a member of the jury. When a trial needs a jury, a group of prospective
jurors who are qualified is required to appear at court. Then, they will be taken to
the courtroom where the trial will take place so that the jury selection process can
begin.
After entering the courtroom, the prospective jurors are required to swear
that they will answer all given questions in the most accurate and truthful way.
They are also warned that if they do not truthfully answer those questions relating
to their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case, they will be prosecuted for
criminal liability for perjury (the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court
after having taken an oath or affirmation.). These prospective jurors promise to tell
the truth by saying “I do”.
Then, the court clerk calls 12 or more prospective jurors to take seats in the
jury box and this group of people is called the jury panel. They will be given some
fundamental information about the case and also the names of people involved by
the judge. The judge and the attorneys start to examine jurors to determine whether
they are free from prejudice and whether there is any other circumstance that
would prevent them from being fair and impartial. This process is called voir dire.
During the voir dire process, the judge will do anything they can to ensure the
balance between the privacy of prospective jurors and the rights of people involved
in the case. The law lets the judge and the lawyers excuse individual jurors from
service for various reasons.
Step 3: Final oath
The process of questioning and excusing jurors continues until 12 people
have been accepted as jurors for the trial. Both the judge and attorneys have to
agree that these jurors are fully qualified to impartially join the trial. Finally, these
competent jurors are required to take another oath, which forces them to promise to
decide the case using only the evidence from the trial.
2.2. The jury trials
2.2.1. Juror responsibilities during the trial
Not discussing the case with anyone
Jurors should avoid speaking to the judges, attorneys, witnesses, other
jurors, or anyone else involved in the case (including people who relate to them).
They are not allowed to discuss the case with their family members or friends.
Posting about the case on social media or websites is also banned. Deciding a case
depending on only the presented evidence in the courtroom is a rule for every
juror. If jurors discuss the case with other people such as their friends, and their
family members, they may be influenced by inaccurate information. That is the
reason why this restrictions are imposed.
Not making up your mind before listening to all the evidence
Jurors’ decisions can greatly affect individuals involved in the case. So until
jurors have heard all the evidence given by parties, they must keep an open mind
and maintain fairness throughout the whole process. They should listen carefully to
the following parts: the opening statements which are each side's outline of the
case, the presentation of evidence by attorneys, closing arguments and the judge’s
instruction on the law. After the litigation process ends, jurors can discuss the case
with fellow jurors.
Not investigating the case yourself
Jurors are not responsible for visiting the scene involved in the case,
carrying out experiments, or using the internet to do research on any topic related
to the case. In case of necessity, the court will arrange supervised visits to crime
scenes for the whole jury. If jurors try to investigate the case themselves, it is
improper and could result in a mistrial.
2.2.2. Jury deliberations
Jury deliberations start as soon as jurors hear the closing arguments and
receive the judge's instruction. The first thing they have to do is selecting the
presiding juror (often called the foreperson). A presiding juror must be a good
discussion leader, a good speaker, a fair and impartial person because he has the
responsibilities to encourage discussions, keep the deliberations focused on the
evidence and the law, let the court know when there are any questions or problems
and tell the court when a verdict has been reached.
After selecting the presiding juror, jurors are allowed to discuss the case
with others. They are free to conduct deliberations in whatever way is helpful.
Then, jurors take their vote by showing of hands, written ballot, or voice ballot. If
jurors cannot reach a verdict after trying many times to do so, they have to ask the
judge for advice on how to proceed.
2.2.3. The verdict
After jurors have finished discussing the case, a verdict has been reached.
They have to sign the verdict form to confirm their last decision before the clerk
asks the presiding juror for the verdict. The clerk or the judge will read the verdict
in the open. Then, the judge may ask each juror to see if they agree with the verdict
or not. Jurors just need to answer “yes” or “no".
3. The importance of jury duty in the United States
3.1. Importance of jury duty
Jury duty is an important responsibility which helps to ensure that justice is
served. It is a great way to give back to your community and play a role in the
judicial system.
Firstly, the jury ensures a balance of Power. Jury duty is essential because it
helps to maintain a balance of power between the government and the people. This
is achieved by guaranteeing that citizens have a voice in the operation of the legal
system. When citizens can participate in the jury duty process, it helps to make
sure that the government is working in the people’s best interests. In addition,
having a jury system contributes to the defense of citizens’ rights. This is because
the jury has the power to rule against the government should they feel that their
rights are being violated.
Secondly, the jury ensures fairness in the legal system. One of the most
critical roles of a jury is to ensure that defendants are given a fair trial. This means
that they must be treated equally under the law, regardless of their social status or
wealth. Jury duty is essential because it helps to ensure that all defendants are
given a fair chance to be heard in court. Thus, it helps to maintain the integrity of
the legal system. Ensuring fairness in the legal system also entails making sure that
the sentences handed down are just and that personal biases do not influence the
decisions made by the jury.
Thirdly, jury duty is significant because it fosters community engagement.
This is achieved by bringing together a group of people from different
backgrounds and walks of life. When citizens come together and participate in the
jury system, it helps promote communication between different people and
improve social cohesion. In addition, the jury preserves Democracy. This is
achieved by ensuring that citizens have a say in running their country. When
citizens can participate in the jury system, it helps to ensure that the government is
working in the people’s best interests. This, in turn, helps to preserve democracy.
Lastly, jury duty is essential because it helps to promote civic responsibility
serving on a jury requires citizens to take an active role in the justice system. When
citizens are actively involved in the justice system, it helps to create a sense of
ownership and responsibility. This, in turn, helps to build a stronger community
and promote civic engagement.
3.2. The jury in comparison with the judge
3.2.1. The difference between the role of the Judge and the role of Jury
In a trial with a judge and jury, each has very different parts to play,
specifically as follows:
The jury makes decisions about the facts. They listen to the evidence and
decide who or what to believe. They decide what the facts of the case are. They are
the only ones who can decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. For example,
in a court case, the jury accepts any or all of a witness' testimony. Additionally, the
Jury decides whether the evidence establishes an agency relationship between the
two parties after the judge instructs the jury on the law of agency. When the jury
reaches a verdict (a decision about the defendant's guilt or otherwise), the jury's
role ends.
The judge makes all legal decisions. Judges ensure that proper procedures
are followed and they make decisions on all questions of law relevant to the
particular case. Because juries do not decide these issues, many legal discussions
and decisions are made when the jury is not present in the courtroom. Additionally,
in the event, the trial judge may remove one or more questions from the jury and
resolve them themselves.
In conclusion, the most noticeable difference between the roles of the jury
and the judge is expressed in deciding the authenticity of evidence and making
legal decisions. When the judge makes a decision, the judge considers the law and
evidence and reaches a conclusion as to whether the plaintiff has met its burden of
proof. When the jury reaches a verdict, the judge instructs the jury about the law.
The jury will then review the evidence, decide which evidence to accept or reject,
and then apply the law to the evidence to reach a verdict.
3.2.2. The pros and cons of jury trials compared with judge
At a jury trial, the outcome of a case is decided by a group of law-abiding
citizens. This is different from a judge trial where the judge makes all decisions.
Even though it possesses numerous benefits, the drawbacks should also be taken
into consideration.
On the one hand, Jury has an immense advantage when compared with
Judge. First of all, Jurors have more compassion than judges. It means that with a
trial by jury, you can use emotional arguments to your advantage, as jurors are
more susceptible to being influenced by the personal appeal of an argument or
testimony. Based on your case, ordinary people can be much easier to persuade
than judges, who are obviously trained to be unbiased and put aside human
emotion in the courtroom. Moreover, Juries tend to be easier audiences than
judges. Oftentimes, stating your case to a jury can be less pressure than a judge
trial. Jurors tend to be less concerned with technical details and more so with
listening to a compelling story and making a decision based on who they believe
should win under the circumstances. Meanwhile, judges analyze all the facts,
evidence, and details of the case. They are highly trained and experienced legal
professionals who make decisions based on the law, unlike the less intimidating,
average juror.
On the other hand, Jury also has some drawbacks when compared with
judge. Firstly, jurors can be too emotional sometimes. For example, a jury trial
would not be an ideal choice for a defendant who has a long criminal record or is
accused of heinous crimes or in the rape of young children, a jury may be tempted
to convict based on personal emotional manipulation rather than to convict beyond
a reasonable doubt. It’s not uncommon for jurors to be unfairly swayed by personal
emotion. Many people find it challenging to make a decision based solely on
evidence and rules. In addition, jurors can be unpredictable. There will always be
uncertainty when a jury is involved. It’s more likely for jurors to misunderstand
critical aspects of a case, such as evidence, burden of proof, or even the judge’s
instructions. Plus, when you factor in human emotion, there’s no telling how a jury
will make a decision.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the jury system represents a crucial aspect of the justice
system, embodying principles such as fairness, impartiality, and the involvement of
the community in the administration of justice. Throughout history, juries have
evolved to ensure that trials are conducted fairly, providing individuals with the
right to be judged by their peers. Moving forward, it is imperative that ongoing
evaluations and discussions surrounding the jury system continue. This includes
exploring ways to enhance juror education, improving the jury selection process,
and addressing potential biases that may arise during trials. Such measures can
help strengthen the jury system, ensuring its continued effectiveness and relevance
in modern legal contexts. In short, the jury system is a cornerstone of justice,
embodying democratic principles and providing an exemplary model of citizen
participation in legal decision-making. As society continues to evolve, the jury
system must adapt and find innovative solutions to meet the challenges of the 21st
century. Through continuous evaluation and improvement, the jury system can
maintain its role as an essential pillar of justice and continue to uphold the
principles of fairness and impartiality in the United States legal systems.
REFERENCES

1. Southern District of Indiana (United States District Court), Trial jury process - 3
steps, https://www.insd.uscourts.gov/trial-jury-process-3-steps, retrieved October
15, 2023.
2. United States Court, Juror selection process, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-
forms/jury-service/juror-selection process#:~:text=The%20judge%20and
%20attorneys%20ask,from%20serving%20in%20that%20trial., retrieved October
15, 2023.
3. Seattle Municipal Court, How a jury is chosen,
https://www.seattle.gov/courts/jury/reporting-for-jury-duty/how-a-jury-is-chosen,
retrieved October 15, 2023.
4. Hans & Vidmar, The evolution of the American jury,
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/juryseminar/EvolutionJury.html,
retrieved October 15, 2023.
5. United States Court, Juror Qualification, Exemptions and Excuses,
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/juror-qualifications-
exemptions-and-excuses, retrieved October 17, 2023.
6. United States Court, Juror Selection process,
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/juror-selection-process,
retrieved October 22, 2023.
7. California Court, About the Trial process,
https://www.courts.ca.gov/2240.htm#panel2244, retrieved October 22, 2023.
8. Law offices of Seth Kretzer, Jury vs. Judge: Pros and cons of each option,
https://kretzerfirm.com/jury-vs-judge-pros-and-cons-of-each-option/?
fbclid=IwAR0kIZPK6PwWiqEumXyRHZ_IInpiUSrfEaAVZrV8ghtRr0O08jIzYu
wJTo , retrieved October 20, 2023.
9.