Trial by Jury
Trial by jury is a legal process where a group of citizens, sworn in as jurors, evaluates evidence presented in court to determine the culpability of an accused individual in criminal or civil cases. This practice is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in Article III, which guarantees the right to a jury trial for all crimes, excluding impeachment. The significance of trial by jury extends beyond mere legal procedure; it serves as a safeguard against government oppression and allows for citizen participation in the democratic process. The Sixth and Seventh Amendments further elaborate on this right, ensuring an impartial jury in criminal cases and the right to jury trials in civil cases involving significant amounts of money.
Historically, the interpretation of these rights has evolved, with the Supreme Court initially ruling that the right to trial by jury did not extend to state courts but later reversing this stance. The Court's decisions emphasized the jury's role as a critical component of due process and participatory democracy. While jurors traditionally decided both law and fact, subsequent rulings have limited their role primarily to factual determinations. Importantly, while adults generally have the right to a jury trial, this right does not extend to juveniles in the juvenile justice system unless they are tried as adults. The complexities surrounding trial by jury highlight both its foundational role in the justice system and the ongoing judicial interpretations that shape its application.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Trial by Jury
Description: A legal process in which a group of citizens sworn as jurors hear evidence presented at trial and collectively decide on the accused’s culpability for crimes or civil offenses.
Relevant amendments: Sixth, Seventh
Significance:Supreme Court rulings affirm the importance of trial by jury as a protection against government oppression of the accused and as an avenue for citizen participation in the democratic process.
Article III, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides the right to trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. The Seventh Amendment grants this right in civil cases involving twenty dollars or more. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to be tried by an impartial jury.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court interpreted these constitutional provisions as only applicable in federal trials, reasoning that trial by jury was not a fundamental right and therefore was not applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. This meant states were not required to provide jury trials but could choose to do so.
The Court reversed its position in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)ruling that trial by jury in criminal cases is a fundamental right applicable to the states. The Court’s reasoning in Duncan emphasized the importance of jury trials as part of due process and a significant aspect of participatory democracy. In subsequent cases, the Court clarified the scope of the right to trial by juryfinding it applicable in any case involving a minimum possible sentence of six months of incarceration and in some cases with a shorter penalty. However, the Court did not extend the Seventh Amendment requirement of trial by jury in civil cases to the states, instead leaving state governments to decide this.
Despite the Court’s recognition of the importance of trial by jury, minors in the juvenile justice system lack this right. The Court, in the case In re Gault (1967), reasoned that because juvenile court proceedings are not adversarialin contrast to adult courtsjury trials are not necessary. However, juveniles tried in adult court gain the right to trial by jury.
Historically, jurors had the right to decide questions of both law and fact. However, in Sparf and Hansen v. United States (1899), the Court restricted jurors to deciding issues of fact. In their capacity as fact finders, jurors in criminal trials decide whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as chargeda requirement the Court noted in In re Winship (1970) that is intended to protect against erroneous convictions. Jurors in most civil cases use the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard. In Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968), the Court emphasized the role of jurors as the conscience of the community.
In a 2018 caseMcCoy v. Louisianadefendant Robert McCoy was charged with murdering his wife and two other members of her immediate family. McCoy denied his guilt andin testifying in his own defenseclaimed to have been out of the state at the time of the murders. McCoy then blamed law enforcement officials for the killings. In an effort to spare McCoy from the death penalty, his lawyer acknowledged McCoy's guilt to the jury and suggested that McCoy's mental condition had prompted him to commit the acts. Jury members nonetheless returned a conviction and three death verdictswhich the Louisiana Supreme Court later upheld. In May 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision. It reasoned that McCoy's Sixth Amendment rights had been violated becausedespite his mental statee retained the right to formulate the basis of his own legal defense.
In January 2024inSmith v. Arizonathe Supreme Court heard arguments on the validity of testimony used to convict defendant Jason Smith. During Smith's original trial, a lab analyst had provided forensic testimony on behalf of prosecutorshe analyst was not the person who had conducted the original tests. Smith's lawyers argued because a different person had testified, this action violated Jason Smith's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Smith and remanded the case back to state court.
Bibliography
Abramson, Jeffrey. We, the Jury. New York, Basic Books, 1994.
Finkel, Norman J. Commonsense Justice: Jurors’ Notions of the Law. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1995.
Howe Amy. "Court Appears to Favor Arizona Man’s Confrontation Clause Claim." SCOTUSblog, 10 Jan. 2024, www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/court-appears-to-favor-arizona-mans-confrontation-clause-claim. Accessed 29 Aug. 2024.
Kalven, Harry, Jr., and Hans Zeisel. The American Jury. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Litan, Robert E., ed. Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System. Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution, 1993.
"McCoy v. Louisiana." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-8255. Accessed 29 Aug. 2024.
"Right to Trial by Jury: Scope of the Right." Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/right-to-trial-by-jury-scope-of-the-right. Accessed 29 Aug. 2024.