On the surface, it seems that as long as it is within the jurisdiction of the court where the case was committed, all American citizens over the age of 18 can be jurors, but in reality it is not that simple.
The first is that people related to the case, including those related to the plaintiff or defendant, shall not be selected. In the primary election of the jury, in order to be fair, the judge will establish the jury to truly represent the people in the most general sense. His choice will be randomly selected from the voting list of the election station or the phone book. In the once sensational Simpson case, a total of 304 candidates were selected in the primary election of the jury. This is because after the primary election, there was a strict screening, mainly to eliminate some caused by the environment and experience. Candidates with psychological inclinations should avoid possible unfair judgments.
In addition to the review by the judge, candidates for jurors are also subject to review by defense lawyers and prosecutors, who have the right to veto candidates for jurors. In addition, the lawyers of both parties have only the right to veto, and any selected juror must be approved by both parties at the same time.
In the end, all that is needed is 12 jurors and 12 alternate jurors. From beginning to end, alternate jurors participate in court trials together with formal jurors. Whenever a juror leaves for some reason, there is an alternate on top. Once all the candidates have been filled and someone has to withdraw, the trial may fail due to the insufficient number of jury members, and everything must be restarted.
In ordinary cases, jurors can usually go home. However, if the case causes a sensation, they must be isolated. In this way, all the information they get is the evidence that is allowed to be presented in court, and they will not be affected by the speculation of the press and illegal evidence in their judgment. Since the jurors were sworn in, the information they can know is far less than the general public. What they are allowed to know is limited to what the judge decides to allow them to hear and see. Jurors are not allowed to read newspapers or watch TV news, so they know nothing about things that happen out of court, such as press conferences held by defense lawyers, and statements from victims' families.
During this period of time, the jurors went to the food store to buy food, and the bailiff followed to ensure that they did not come into contact with the outside world. Before the whole case is over and handed over to them for decision, the jurors cannot communicate and discuss the case with each other. In short, everything is to keep them from being affected by emotions and non-evidence from all walks of life in order to maintain a fair judgment. It can be said that during this period of time, jurors have less freedom than the suspect in the case.
There are also many controversies regarding the American jury system. It appears to be the weakest link in the American judicial system. The jurors sampled randomly, and the people who came were all kinds of people, people of different races and skin colors, regardless of whether they had career or not, regardless of knowledge and culture. In the United States, the strongest is the legal team. Why should we find a group of "laymen" to be "judges above the judges"? In the United States, everyone who understands and agrees with this system never thinks that it is a perfect system, but can't find a better system than it. This is exactly like what the Americans sometimes jokingly say: if you don't compare the jury system with the systems of other countries, it really sucks. The third president of the United States, Jefferson, believed that the role of the jury system in safeguarding democracy is more important than the right to vote.
Of course, the jury system has obvious weaknesses. All the "rule of law" will be confused by the "rule of man". The initial legislation, trial, and final judgment all involve "people". The jury system design argues that if everything is clear and clear at a glance, ordinary people’s intelligence is sufficient to judge. The reason why Americans insist on using the jury system is because jurors are the least controlled by anyone.
The jurors are independent of the government, independent of the judicial system, and independent of any political forces. Their judgment is the judgment that ordinary people will make under the law on jury. They come and go as soon as they are called, and the court keeps them secret, so that they have no psychological burden. As long as they don't want to show up, they can never be known about their role by those around them. Of course, there is a basic condition for this, that is, this society is free and ordinary people are not under any control.
http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2008-01-31/120414871625.shtml
View more about Runaway Jury reviews
