Importance Of Checking In Jurors

We should not have a professional jury system because it simply doesn't work for our government system. If we were to have a professional jury system, jurors would be biased, lazy and experiences with past cases would interfere. Although there would be different jurors with different histories on a panel, Jurors would be biased because they would all have the same education telling them what is right and wrong. The same textbook would be deciding whether a person is guilty, or not guilty. Another circumstance where a juror would be biased is race. If a white male were to be convicting and black male, it could easily fly under the radar that the white male juror is holding a grudge. Many black males and minorities would be discriminated against

In the U.S. our system is formulated by various means to construct tweleve fair and unbiased jurors. Whom acording to our text, hypothetically decide cases based on “burden of proof and reasonable doubt.” These individuals listen and take into account the evidence and testimoneys of witnesses appointed by both the prosecution and defense through the duration of the trial. Though many make a preliminary decision based on the opening statements. Once trial has commenced the jury is dissmissed to the deliberation room. Where disscussion about the elements of the case and the defendents specific actions begin, but jurors usually vote as soon as they retire to jury room and the orginal vote wins the majority of the time. Allowing their own

Pope Innocent III “ forbade priestly involvement in ordeals—thus taking away their holy sanction [and] in 1215, a jury system was loosely in place in Norman England. In this system, the king’s court chose twelve persons to testify as to what they knew about the facts of a case or the character of the parties involved” (The American Trial Jury). Since its establishment in 1215, problems have arisen regarding the jury system across the world. Foremost, the rise of technology engendered unjust trials and biased jurors in the 1950s, during the Sam Sheppard case. The news media released the names and telephone numbers of the jurors involved in the case and they encouraged local citizens to call the, to voice their opinions during a trial, and therefore the jury was not isolated from media outlets (The American Trial Jury). Race also generates dilemmas with the jury system, like in the case of Keith Tharpe. Woefully, he was on trial for murder and convicted solely because of a racist juror who referred to him as a derogatory name for blacks (A Black Man Convicted By a Racist Juror is About To Be Executed). Likewise, the jury system is flawed due to a rise in juror misconduct. In the year 2009, during the court case United States v. Bristol-Martir, a juror conducted illicit research on the case and was subsequently disqualified as a result of her immoral actions (Saltzburg, Dealing With Juror

There are twelve jurors who act very differently from one another. For example, juror #7 is very stuck up and inconsiderate of other jurors’ opinions on the case. “What's there to talk about? Eleven of us think he's guilty. No one had to think about it twice except you.” Juror #7 decided to be rude from the start and didn’t ask juror #8 why he voted non-guilty, he went right into attacking

The functions of jury consultants are to assist the lawyers in the jurors selection process. Due to the fact that preemptory challenges are limited, the jury consultants help discover bias of potential jurors. In addition, they also provide the necessary criteria

The current jury system in America is unfortunately corrupt because of unprofessional jurors that are the deciding factor for cases. The “jury of our peers” system does not promote fair justice and it should be replaced with a new system of professional jurors. The current system allows random, unqualified individuals to make irresponsible decisions for our government. If unqualified jurors were replaced with professional jurors, our system would become successful. A professional system of jurors is an efficient way for justice to be decided because the current system allows jurors to be uneducated on law, inconsistent with experience, and bias based on their opinions.

Personal cell phones need to be silenced during working hours and only used for emergencies.

I am in receipt of your Jury Summons letter requesting that I attend Courtroom #3 on August 1, 2018 for jury selection. Although, I realize that being a juror is a civic responsibility, I am writing to respectfully request that I be excused from jury selection at this time, for the following reasons:

There is a process that takes place to decide which jurors are selected for a trial. A jury is not selected out of popularity, but through many identifiable documents. When people register in their area of residency, it gives them a right to sit on jury which is required for all people who are adults and are proficient to serve as a jurors. Primarily, potential jurors receive their notification by mail which precisely indicates the location of where to report. (Challenge

The phone system is currently set up with two lines: if the customer service representative is on one line, incoming calls are routed to voice mail where the customer can leave a message. The representative listens to the messages and returns calls as time permits. This is an inefficient system as the customer service representative has difficulty taking calls directly on busy days. Instead, the representative ends one call, listens to the next voice mail, returns that call, and so forth.

Currently, anyone who is a United States citizen, a legal adult, and a registered voter can be randomly selected to attend jury duty as a citizen juror. Some critics of this system believe citizen jurors are not ideal because they do not know or understand the law and are too likely to act upon their passions, emotions, or prejudices. These critics would prefer juries to be comprised of professional jurors because they should be less prone to passions, emotions, and prejudices than citizen jurors, and instead be more apt to incorporate their professional experience and knowledge of the law to determine verdicts. However, because jurors are required to make decisions based purely on evidence presented at the specific trial in question, (Mushlin, 2007. p. 241) some people argue that professional jurors may bring too much background knowledge into the decision-making process. This possible personal and professional bias by professional jurors may result in speculations about whether the professionals are

During your time off the phones Jimmy and myself will assist with the incoming calls. We will also be closely monitoring CUIC to make sure everyone is productively working. There should not be at any point no one in an idle not ready time for more

To predict a juror’s attitude, the juror’s age is multiplied by w, the Gender score by x, the Education score by y, and the Occupation score by z. These results are then added together. This gives the final sum, CV, which is the predicted attitude for that juror. Since the distribution of attitudes in the population is known, the equation enables one to decide whether a given juror should be challenged off the jury by seeing where his or her score falls in that distribution. The equation can be used to compile the predicted attitude index for each juror under consideration, or alternatively, the data can be used to construct profiles of what relatively positive and negative jurors look like (Berry,

When it comes to becoming a juror, people are not given the decision whether or not they would like to be in the juror pool. If the duty to serve as a juror is ignored, it could result in legal action. The legal action will consist of a warrant and jail time for anyone who ignores their duty. That being said, if people are obligated to serve in the juror pool, I believe their privacy should be protected at all times. Unfortunately, that’s not the case today. Every American today have the authority to have access to personal information with regards to the jurors, according to the first amendment (LaMance, 2016). The access of public information, in my opinion, could not only jeopardize the case, but also be a safety concern as well. In other words, the dangers of the right

The 21st century is one of rapid technological change. The internet has become an increasingly prevalent practice in many individuals’ lives, with its persuasiveness spreading into the social realm. Technologies such as mobile phones – combined with search engines, blogs and social media, namely Twitter and Facebook –have become widespread. The effect of these types of technologies has become apparent in the courtroom and poses many new litigation challenges, ultimately impeding the administration of justice. This essay will be examining the effects of jurors’ consulting the internet and social media, assessing the current law and procedure on juror misconduct and highlighting the possible solutions to overcome this issue.