Trial By Jury Landmark Cases
I. What is Trial by Jury?
A jury is a group of ordinary citizens who hear evidence and deliver a verdict.
It serves as a check on government power and ensures community participation.
Jury trials are primarily used in serious criminal cases and some civil matters.
Key features include impartiality, secrecy of deliberations, and unanimous or majority verdicts (depending on jurisdiction).
II. Landmark Cases on Trial by Jury
1. Bushell’s Case (1670) – England
Facts:
Jurors acquitted Quakers despite judicial pressure.
Judge tried to punish the jurors for their verdict.
Judgment:
Court held that jurors cannot be punished or coerced for their verdict.
Established the independence of the jury.
Significance:
Foundation of jury independence.
Protected jurors from intimidation or influence by the court.
2. R. v. Crown Court at Manchester, ex parte McDonald (1997) – UK
Facts:
Application questioned the validity of a jury verdict.
Judgment:
Court emphasized the secrecy of jury deliberations.
Held that courts cannot investigate the jury's internal discussions.
Significance:
Confirmed juror secrecy as essential to free and fair trials.
Courts must respect the finality of jury decisions.
3. Brown v. State (1897) – United States
Facts:
Defendant argued that a biased juror was present.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that trial courts must ensure impartial juries.
If bias is proven, verdict must be overturned.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of jury impartiality.
Led to more rigorous jury selection and challenges.
4. R. v. Wang (2005) – UK
Facts:
Defendant claimed jury was improperly influenced by media coverage.
Judgment:
Court allowed a trial judge’s direction to the jury on avoiding media bias.
Held media influence can be grounds for a mistrial if it affects impartiality.
Significance:
Addressed challenges posed by media and external influences.
Reinforced the role of the judge in protecting jury fairness.
5. Irvin v. Dowd (1961) – United States
Facts:
Defendant argued pre-trial publicity biased the jury.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that excessive media coverage violating impartiality infringes due process.
Ordered new trial with impartial jury.
Significance:
Recognized pre-trial publicity as a threat to jury impartiality.
Emphasized need for juror screening or change of venue.
III. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bushell’s Case (1670) | England | Jury independence | Protected jurors from coercion | Foundation of jury independence |
| R v. Manchester ex parte McDonald (1997) | UK | Jury secrecy | Courts cannot probe deliberations | Preserves jury deliberation secrecy |
| Brown v. State (1897) | US | Juror impartiality | Biased juror invalidates verdict | Ensures fair jury composition |
| R v. Wang (2005) | UK | Media influence on jury | Trial judge’s directions required | Mitigates media bias impact |
| Irvin v. Dowd (1961) | US | Pre-trial publicity | New trial ordered | Protects right to impartial jury |
IV. Key Takeaways
Jury independence is a cornerstone of fair trials.
Jurors must be impartial and free from coercion or external influences.
Secrecy of deliberations protects jurors and the decision-making process.
Courts intervene only when there’s clear evidence of jury bias or misconduct.
Media and publicity pose challenges to impartial jury trials, but can be managed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments