Under what circumstance is trial by jury suspended in the UK? The most obvious example I can think of is a Diplock court, where juries are suspended and the case presided over by a single judge. This arrangement was created in response to terrorism during The Troubles. As I understand it, this is only relevant for terrorism cases. I'd like to know if there's any other circumstances where juries are not required for prosecution.
Generally speaking, jury trials in England and Wales are allowed (but can be waived by a defendant in most cases) for offenses punishable by more than six months of incarceration (i.e. serious misdemeanors and all felonies), with exceptions for domestic violence cases, serious and complex fraud cases, Diplock courts in Northern Ireland prior to 2008, cases where there is a serious risk of jury tampering, and in cases where double jeopardy defenses are at issue. It appears that jury trials are mandatory, however, and cannot be waived by defendants, in some serious criminal cases. (Historically, trial by jury was suspended in most cases during World War II.) English law enforcement officials can also detain people without trial for limited periods of time (generally up to 28 days prior to 2011 and now 14 days) without criminal charges in terrorism cases. This detention without trial procedure was instituted at the same time that the Diplock court system was shut down. (Courts-martial present another issue entirely.) Diplock courts were instituted out of concerns about jury nullification and jury tampering, and the latter concern remains an all purpose reason to deny a jury trial in a particular criminal case. Importantly, since 1967, juries in England and Wales need not be unanimous. Up to 2 dissenting votes are allowed on a jury of 12 and up to 1 dissenting vote is allowed on juries with 8 to 11 members remaining at the time of deliberations. The failure of up to three jurors on a jury of twelve (used in the Crown and High Courts) to complete the trial is allowed without a substitute and up to 1 juror who doesn't complete a trial is allowed in a jury of eight in County Court. From the first link above: A coroner must summon a jury for an inquest if the death occurred in prison or in police custody, or in the execution of a police officer's duty, or if it falls under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, or if it affects public health or safety. Coroner's juries have 7-11 members and a minority report of 2 members of that jury can be its verdict. In civil cases, juries are used in eminent domain valuation cases, where the judge might be seen as having a conflict of interest. Further, as explained in the first link above, they are also used as follows: In 1998 less than 1% of civil trials in England and Wales were jury trials and these were principally defamation cases. Section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which replaced s. 6 of the 1933 Act in respect of High Court trials, provides that trial shall be by jury on the application of a party where the court is satisfied that there is in issue: a claim of fraud against the party; or a claim in respect of libel, slander, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment unless the court is of the opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury. FYI, Scottish practice with regard to jury trials is completely distinct from the practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and is beyond the scope of this answer. Both the size and process of the jury, and its availability are different in Scotland.
You can't guarantee a juror's disregard, and some attorneys might utilize the "once it's said, it can't be unsaid" strategy because they know that the jury will still keep it in the back of their mind even though they've been told to ignore it. But there are checks and balances to prevent a remark having an impact on the final decision: Jury deliberation. Chances are, not all jurors will keep the thought in their mind. The jury gets a chance to deliberate after the case has been presented, and it's very easy for other jurors in the deliberation room to point out they're ignoring that piece of information and not let it influence the final decision. Declaring a mistrial. A mistrial is fully at the judge's discretion, but generally anything that affects the jury's ability to remain impartial can result in a mistrial being declared (for example, if an attorney deliberately said something outrageous to influence the jury when they knew it would be withdrawn, the judge will likely declare a mistrial without much thought). Once a mistrial is declared, the case will be postponed and a brand new jury will be selected that hasn't heard the previous remarks - easiest way to erase it from their minds is to not use their minds.
Quoting from here, Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding. In essence, a jury decides that a law should not be legal in the situation, and as such the charge is unwarranted. One of the first cases was in the trial of John Peter Zenger, in 1735, where a law against libels was used against him, and subsequently nullified by a jury. It was subsequently used against the famous Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as The Fugitive Slave Laws. Zenger was the first case in America; in 1670, it was used in the case of William Penn and William Mead, who were acquitted of "illegal assembly" as Quakers. In an interesting twist, the jurors were imprisoned, as jury nullification was not explicitly legal, but they were later released. Interestingly enough, according to The New York Times In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. The Times also wrote that nullification had been used against laws against alcohol and gay marriage, though it did not cite specific cases.
When a judge decides a case there will be An order - e.g. &quot;Smith shall pay Jones £100,000&quot; Reasons for the decision - i.e. a description of the evidence, and the judge's findings of fact and legal reasoning. Sometimes a party, even though they have completely won, is nevertheless aggrieved by some things the judge has said in the Reasons (or in the way the judge has handled the trial - e.g. the judge's interventions). For example the judge may have said that the winning party was not a credible witness but they nevertheless won because of the evidence of other witnesses who were found to be credible. The rule in England and Wales is that you can only appeal orders. So if the order is completely in your favour you cannot appeal just because you don't like the reasons.
Generally speaking, British courts, when making judgments on constitutional matters regard themselves as interpreting existing law, rather than creating new law. But technically speaking, any legal precedent established by a court can be interpreted as "creation of new law". For the avoidance of doubt, the sources of law in the law of England and Wales include: statute law, constitutional convention, prerogative powers, common law, and legal commentary. I may have missed some out and may edit those in later. Common law refers to the judgments of courts. So here we come to your question: Several legal principles and precedents were established by this judgment, and you may consider this new "law": The court held that prerogative powers are justiciable - courts can limit the scope of these powers The prerogative power in question had limits. It can be limited when its use has an extreme detrimental effect on the democracy of the UK and parliamentary sovereignty. What is important with point one is that the court recognised that this power has always existed, stemming as far back as the bill of rights in the 17th century. As such, the court is implying that it is creating nothing new, but recognising a law that has always existed. You will see a LOT of this when studying constitutional law.
You could ask the bailiff to bring this concern to the attention of the judge. If you feel the need to protect yourself, you should. If you are really sincerely scared, stand your ground and refuse to participate for this reason in your response to the judge, even if this puts you at risk of a contempt of court sanction - better to being in jail briefly than to be physically harmed by another juror. The judge might release you from jury service or dismiss the threatening juror, or might declare a mistrial if you bring this to the judge's attention. The mistrial could result in the de facto acquittal of the defendant in a criminal case, especially if no alternates are available and dismissing you or the threatening juror would bring the jury below a quorum, so keep this in mind. I would also not tell the bailiff what position you are being coerced to take, merely that you are being coerced with physical threats. And I would identify the threatening juror (who might also be removed). Of course, if you are actually on a jury right now, you are almost surely violating your obligations as a juror by going on line to ask this question.
While trials don't have a set time, generally the length of a trial is based on its complexity (and to a certain degree, also the gravity of the charge). Simpler cases (e.g. breaking and entering) will generally take less time to hear than more complex cases (e.g. a violation of proper calculation procedure of an SEC mandated income report concerning transfers of capital accrued by partially owned subsidiaries). For example, last year I was called to jury selection for a drunk driving case that was estimated to last 2 days; this year, I was called for jury selection, which took over a week before I was dismissed as a potential jury, for a murder trial that was estimated to last over a month. However, I'm sure that OJ's celebrity did play a role in the length of his trial; if nothing else, then it would have lengthened the jury selection and voir dire process significantly.
Given that a murder and an involuntary manslaughter are two different offenses, could a jury be asked to adjudicate on both counts? This happens routinely. Could it find the defendant guilty of both? Only for certain offenses. See lesser included offense. Could the DA even accuse the defendant of both during the same trial? Yes, which is how juries are asked to adjudicate multiple offenses as noted above. What about in different trials? All the crimes associated with a given act have to be tried at once. If you've been acquitted of murder in connection with one act, you can't subsequently be tried for involuntary manslaughter for the same act, nor vice versa. And what about murder and attempted murder? I don't think it's possible to be tried for an attempt when the crime has been successful; certainly, the opposite is true. But again, if the charges are based on the same act (i.e., we know you tried to kill the victim, and we know someone succeeded, but we don't know whether it was you) then the charges would have to be tried at the same time.