UK - how are jurors replaced after having been dismissed? In England, after a prospective juror has been rejected (say for cause), how is she or he replaced? I see from http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process.htm# that The selected jurors are most commonly divided into groups of 15 and then assigned to a court case. The court clerk will select 12 out of the 15 potential jurors at random to sit on the jury. [...] If the courts require the juror to stand down then one of the remaining 3 jurors that was not originally selected will fill the space. My questions are : Do I understand correctly that a juror is picked at random among the 3 remaining jurors to replace the one that was dismissed? Can this replacement juror also be challenged? What happens if more than 3 juror end up being dismissed? Where do the replacement juror come from then? (subsidiary question: does that ever happen?) Do the parties know anything about the 3 potential replacement jurors, or do the parties know only about the potential jurors currently sitting in the box? Note : if possible, I would very much appreciate if answers could point to references from official sources. Hope that's not to many questions at once.
There are two important points you need to consider: jurors cannot be challenged (in the US sense), and the judge has wide discretion to handle any problems that arise in his court. If a juror has prior knowledge of the case, or could not be expected to be impartial, the judge (or sometimes the bailiff) will excuse him, and bring in one of the three replacements. If either side's lawyers dislike the look of a juror, they may if the judge allows ask questions to elicit such reasons, and then ask the judge to disqualify (I was on a jury where one of my colleagues was a policeman, and the defence suggested that he could not be impartial; the judge asked some questions and then excused him, and I understand he was never actually empanelled that week). But you are not permitted to select jurors you think will favour you or (equivalently) to ask to dismiss a juror without a factual disqualification; you can't, for example, ask about a juror's politics. Disqualifying a juror is thus rare, and the chance of four jurors having ties to a particular case is so remote as to be not worth worrying about. The second point, and the reason why written authority is hard to find, is that the judge has almost unlimited discretion over any action in his Court that does not infringe statute. There was a case in the newspapers recently where a juror discussed the case he was hearing in the pub, and was therefore dismissed from the jury; the judge consulted prosecution and defence and decided to proceed with eleven jurors rather than start the trial again. This does not mean that 'any trial can be heard with eleven jurors'; it means that in that particular case justice was best served by continuing. There is always the option to request a mistrial (which may or may not be granted) or to say that, a fair trial now being impossible, you intend to appeal on this point; but failing that the judge's decision on any procedural point is binding.
One can argue both ways. On one side, yes, zero representation in the Senate for all states is equal suffrage in the Senate. On the other side, no, depriving all states of all representation in the Senate deprives them of their suffrage in the Senate (without needing to consider the question of whether the suffrage is equal). Since this question has never been considered by a court, we can't do much more than speculate how one might rule. There has never been an amendment proposed to modify the composition of the Senate -- at least not one that was seriously considered. The spirit of the law works in favor of the second interpretation. Furthermore, a strict application of abstract logical reasoning was probably not the intention of the framers. A strategy that might seem more likely to succeed would be to introduce amendments reducing the Senate's power in the legislative process, similar to the evolution of the House of Lords in the UK. If the goal were to sideline one state, this might work, but if the goal is to address the complaint that the Senate is undemocratic because people in smaller states have proportionally more influence there, there's no way the amendment would pass 3/4 of the states' legislatures. The number of states with one or two representatives is 13, by itself a sufficient number to block the adoption of an amendment.
Jurors don't have a "right" to jury nullification per-se. The "right" of jury nullification is really just a logical consequence of other rights that the jury and the defendant have The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return. In fact, the court doesn't want juries to nullify, because that undermines the rule of law, and they might penalize lawyers tho try to argue for nullification The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S.,[24] written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[25] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States As far as how would juror's know about jury nullification, they could have read about the process before being selected for jury duty. Some Juries might also rule contrary to their instructions without actually having heard about jury nullification because they have some sort of sympathy with the defendant.
Once you're in CJS, scroll down to "Juries." From there, it's just a matter of expanding the subgroups to see what sections they include. In your case, its: Corpus Juris Secundum Juries IX. Constitution and Selection of Jury in General B. Cognizable Groups § 275. Age as cognizable group for fair cross-section Cognizable groups for jury selection purposes generally do not include age groups, such as young adults. Cognizable groups for jury selection purposes generally do not include age groups, such as young adults, young people, or the young, or the elderly. It has also been held that young persons can constitute a cognizable group, but that their claimed underrepresentation does not invoke a high standard of judicial review. Moreover, there is authority that whether an age group is a cognizable group, for purposes of a challenge to the array of grand and traverse juries, depends on the time and location of the trial.
The origin of the jury is a complex mix of Saxon, Danish and Norman custom which morphed and melded along with English Common Law, which is the basis of the law in all ex-British colonies including the USA. Danish towns in the north and east of England had hereditary “law men”, often 12 in number who decided legal disputes. In parallel the West Saxons (Wessex) in the south and west charged 12 theigns in each area with keeping the peace. When the Normans conquered (who were also of Viking origin) they adopted and adapted the existing legal structures. In the 12th century, Henry II established that a jury of 12 should decide land disputes. Meanwhile other juries of various sizes were formed to investigate crimes and bring charges - this is the origin of the Grand Juries that still live on in some jurisdictions in the USA although they have been replaced by a judge in other common law jurisdictions (and some states in the USA). Ultimately the jury that brought charges and the jury that decided guilt were split and the size was standardised. However, it is incorrect to say that it is always 12: some jurisdictions have different numbers for different purposes. For example, rule 48 of the US Federal rules for civil procedure sets the number at not less than 6 and not more than 12. The jury system continues to evolve with various jurisdictions adopting different numbers, majority verdicts and judge only trials. There is nothing special or “scientific” about 12: it is what it is because it is what it is.
Maybe I'm reading Walsh wrong, but it seems to me to be saying that Stout might apply in some cases, but it doesn't in that specific case. I think you are indeed reading it wrong. In the Walsh case, the court says: We have not had occasion to decide the question up to this time, but now that it is presented, we not only reiterate the doubt which we expressed in the McAlpin case (supra), but we think that the question of the defendant's negligence was erroneously submitted to the jury in the Stout case, and that we ought not to follow it as a precedent. It's clearly repudiating Stout here, and not just as it applies to that case. It literally says they think it should not be followed as precedent.
Unless there is enough evidence to convict one or more of the suspects, none will be convicted. In general the argument: We know it must be one of you, but we don't know whch, so we find you all guilty. is not allowed in any non-dictatorial jurisdiction. Just how much evidence is needed for a conviction varies by jurisdiction in theory, and by judge or jury in practice. Also, it would be possible to charge several of the residents with having acted jointly in the crime, but there would still need to be sufficient evidence against each defendant to obtain a conviction.
The jury isn't told what the law allows. They are told to come up with a number and if it exceeds what the law allows, the judge modifies it in response to post-judgment motions.