Jury of One

Clifford Sprague Edward Binns Che Fong Herman Wedemeyer Duke Don 'Lance' Over Judge Phillips Arthur Malet Artie Boland Dale Morse Helen Sprague Robert Sandla Lew Foss Bill Bigelow Edit Did You Know? Trivia This was Douglas Kennedy's last screen appearance. Goofs [ All goofs for this title are spoilers. Add the first question. Audible Download Audio Books. Shelly is a lawyer who usually defends juveniles in school disciplinary trials, but now finds herself defending a former client, Alex, who is 17 and is accused of murdering a police officer.

Shelly is also the daughter of Governor Trotter, and has completely lost all communication with him since she gave her son up for adoption when she was sixteen, after becoming pregnant. As Alex's trial approaches Shelly attempts to figure out the many details of the night of the shooting. Many questions arise from the details exposed. Was Alex in with the F. Was Alex in with the most notorious street gang, The Columbus Street Cannibals or was Alex up to something much worse?

Did Alex shoot the police officer? And as Shelly digs deeper for information the most chilling question comes to light. Is Alex the son she gave up for adoption 17 years ago? The event in Jury of One I connected to the most was when Shelly and her father, Governor Trotter, had a heartfelt reunion after 17 years of bitter and harsh emotions toward each other. Shelly and her father were bitter to each other because just before she became pregnant her father decided to run for the state's attorney general's position.

Fearing that her father would be politically criticized after Shelly became pregnant, Shelly went to her Grandmother's so her father's campaign wouldn't be ruined. Their relationship deteriorated from there. When a very important piece of information about Shelly's pregnancy comes to her father's attention Shelly and her father reunite. I felt that when Shelly and her father reunited you could just feel that they both missed each other's company. Also, it felt like the past 17 years hadn't even happened between them because of the love and admiration they share for each other.

I connected to this part of the book because I can't even imagine what it must have been like to not talk to your father or daughter for 17 years and truly missed them. I really admired how the author brought these two characters together and you just knew they both were happy that the distance between them was absolved. I would recommend Jury of One to anyone who enjoys reading a fictional book about a lawyer's life or a trial.

Jury of One includes many aspects about how a lawyer prepares for trial and the rules of the courtroom. I found Jury of One to be confusing at times because of all of the terms of the justice system used and the different rules that a lawyer must follow when questioning a person on the stand. I felt the author could have better explained and elaborated more on the things that were being said in the book. Also, I liked that the author was creating suspense by giving new details about the shooting and accusing another character of shooting the officer.

But, I felt that all of the different plot twists and turns made it difficult to follow Shelly's train of thought and what idea she was going to present to defend Alex. With all of the plot twists and turns the ending of the book was something I completely did not expect at all. Although the end was surprising and I didn't like how it was exposed in the book, I did feel like it wrapped up the book well. If I had the option of reading this book again for pleasure I do not believe I would because I found all of the terminology very confusing.

But, I would recommend Jury of One to anyone who is interested in the justice system and knows the rules of the court. Aug 03, Eliece rated it really liked it. This courtroom drama kept me guessing right to the end. It used a writing technique that I don't ever remember seeing before. Shelly's client is a year-old accused of killing a policeman, and she suspects that he may have been involved in an undercover operation to entrap This courtroom drama kept me guessing right to the end.

Shelly's client is a year-old accused of killing a policeman, and she suspects that he may have been involved in an undercover operation to entrap dirty cops. In flashbacks, we learn that Shelly had been raped when she was 16, and in a shocking revelation she learns that her client Alex is her son.

Shelly has no experience in criminal court, but he refuses to have any other lawyer. As she delves deeper into the case, she begins to fear that he is lying to her to protect his best friend, but he is adamant that Ronnie had nothing to do with what happened. In open court, and under oath, Ronnie makes an accusation that literally causes Shelly to faint.

About Texas Courts

Even after this bombshell which caught me completely by surprise, that latter chapter was necessary to clear up all the questions. This was a well-crafted, thoroughly satisfying novel, where I cared about the characters and found myself silently pleading with the author to make it turn out well. Feb 15, Kathy rated it it was amazing.

I loved this book. It just kept surprising me right up to the end. In so many books, it's easy to pretty much figure it out early on or the author doesn't give you enough information to figure it out. Then at the end, they give you vital facts to create a "surprise" ending. What I like about David Ellis is he pretty much gives you all the information you need to figure out the ending, but he keeps you guessing and re-examining the facts throughout the whole book.

I found myself going back re-rea I loved this book. I found myself going back re-reading passages, trying to solve the case. I enjoyed this book much more than any Grisham I've read. This is a good book filled with mystery, loyalty, legal procedures, dirty cops and family secrets.

I liked the main characters and the story line kept my interest.

Jury - Wikipedia

Loved the surprise ending too! Karen's review Jury of One by David Ellis is about a young boy named Alex who is accused of killing a cop, and Shelly is his attorney. As she learns more about the shooting, secrets Alex and her have get revealed. This book is good from beginning to end and the last part of the book with the trial is n This is a good book filled with mystery, loyalty, legal procedures, dirty cops and family secrets. This book is good from beginning to end and the last part of the book with the trial is nearly impossible to put down.

Feb 08, Becky rated it really liked it Shelves: I was actually fooled! I didn't predict the entire plot in the first 45 mintues of the book!! It was refreshing to have a storyline that you could not see coming a mile away. I suppose in hindsight that I might have missed a few forshadowing points, I truely did not predict the direction of the plot. In fact, I went online when I got done to find out if there were other David Ellis books that I could get next.

Jul 13, Enelita Hermens-Latoza rated it it was amazing. A good read, a la Grisham, Ludlum and a Robert Crais combine. Shelly survives from rape at a young ages, and an outcast from the family, she lives independently until she finishes her law school. Becomes an advocate for children's rights in connection from her past.

She defends a youngster who killed a cop. A drama, family breaks-up, self struggle, remorse and family unification at the end. A very significant court battle to win her case, especi A good read, a la Grisham, Ludlum and a Robert Crais combine. A very significant court battle to win her case, especially for someone who defends a cop killer. Feb 24, Sheila rated it really liked it Recommended to Sheila by: My dad gave me this book to read.

Told me not to read the last part waiting in a public place because he cried. I took his advice, however, it wasn't necessary. I may have 'teared' up, but I didn't 'all out bawl. I liked this book for that reason alone, if for no other reason. A Court d'Assise and a Court d' Assise d'Appello decides on a majority of votes, and therefore predominantly on the votes of the lay judges, who are a majority of six to two, but in fact lay judges, who are not trained to write such explanation and must rely on one or the other stipendiary judge to do it, are effectively prevented from overruling both of them.

The Corte d'Assise has jurisdiction to try crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 24 years in prison or life imprisonment, and other serious crimes; felonies that fall under its jurisdiction include terrorism , murder, manslaughter, severe attempts against State personalities, as well as some matters of law requiring ethical and professional evaluations ex. Penalties imposed by the court can include life sentences. Juries are used in trials for all trials involving Category 4 offences such as treason, murder and manslaughter, although in exceptional circumstances a judge-alone trial may be ordered.

At the option of the defendant, juries may be used in trials involving Category 3 offences, that is offences where the maximum penalty available is two years imprisonment or greater. In civil cases, juries are only used in cases of defamation, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Juries must initially try to reach a unanimous verdict, but if one cannot be reached in a reasonable timeframe, the judge may accept a majority verdict of all-but-one i.

Juries existed in Norway as early as the year , and perhaps even earlier. They brought the jury system to England and Scotland. Though Norway and Denmark had different legal systems throughout their personal union , and later under the governmental union , there was attempt to harmonize the legal systems of the two countries. Even if juries were abolished, the layman continued to play an important role in the legal system throughout in Norway.

The jury was reintroduced in , and is solely used in criminal cases on the second tier of the three-tier Norwegian court system " Lagmannsretten ". The jury consists of 10 people, and has to reach a majority verdict consisting of seven or more of the jurors. In a sense, the concept of being judged by one's peers exists on both the first and second tier of the Norwegian court system: In Tingretten , one judge and two lay judges preside, and in Lagmannsretten three judges and four lay judges preside if a jury is not used.

The lay judges do not hold any legal qualification, and represent the peers of the person on trial, as members of the general public.

As a guarantee against any abuse of power by the educated elite, the number of lay judges always exceeds the number of appointed judges. In the Supreme Court , only trained lawyers are seated. Spain had no established tradition of using juries in trials, but the Constitution of , legislates the right to a trial by jury, called "popular jury" as opposed to a "magistrates jury". The provision is arguably somewhat vague: One of the first jury trial cases was that of Mikel Otegi who was tried in for the murder of two police officers.

After a confused [ clarification needed ] trial, five jury members of a total of nine voted to acquit and the judge ordered the accused set free. This verdict shocked the nation. In press libel cases and other cases concerning offenses against freedom of the press, the question of whether or not the printed material falls outside permissible limits is submitted to a jury of 9 members which provides a pre-screening before the case is ruled on by normal courts.

In these cases 6 out of 9 jurors must find against the defendant, and may not be overruled in cases of acquittal. Sweden has no tradition of using juries in most types of criminal or civil trial.

The sole exception, since , is in cases involving freedom of the press, prosecuted under Chapter 7 of the Freedom of the Press Act, part of Sweden's constitution. These cases are tried in district courts first tier courts by a jury of nine laymen. The jury in press freedom cases rules only on the facts of the case and the question of guilt or innocence. The trial judge may overrule a jury's guilty verdict, but may not overrule an acquittal.

A conviction requires a majority verdict of Sentencing is the sole prerogative of judges. Jury members must be Swedish citizens and resident in the county in which the case is being heard.

Related Articles

They must be of sound judgement and known for their independence and integrity. Combined, they should represent a range of social groups and opinions, as well as all parts of the county. It is the county council that have the responsibility to appoints juries for a tenure of four years under which they may serve in multiple cases. The appointed jurymen are divided into two groups, in most counties the first with sixteen members and the second with eight.

From this pool of available jurymen the court hears and excludes those with conflicts of interest in the case, after which the defendants and plaintiffs have the right to exclude a number of members, varying by county and group. The final jury is then randomly selected by drawing of lots.

Juries are not used in other criminal and civil cases. For most other cases in the first and second tier courts lay judges sit alongside professional judges. Lay judges participate in deciding both the facts of the case and sentencing. Lay judges are appointed by local authorities, or in practice by the political parties represented on the authorities. In England and Wales jury trials are used for criminal cases, requiring 12 jurors between the ages of 18 and 75 , although the trial may continue with as few as 9. The right to a jury trial has been enshrined in English law since Magna Carta in , and is most common in serious cases, although the defendant can insist on a jury trial for most criminal cases.

Jury trials in complex fraud cases have been described by some members and appointees of the Labour Party as expensive and time-consuming. Jury trials are also available for some few areas of civil law for example defamation cases and those involving police conduct ; these also require 12 jurors 9 in the County Court. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland , jury trials were suspended and trials took place before Diplock Courts.

These were essentially trials before judges only. This was to combat the intimidation of juries. Scottish trials are based on an adversarial approach. First the prosecution leads evidence from witnesses and after each witness the defence has an opportunity to cross examine. Following the Prosecution case, the defence may move a motion of no case to answer if the worst the prosecution has been able to lead in evidence would be insufficient to convict of any crime.

If there remains a case to answer, the defence leads evidence from witnesses in an attempt to refute previous evidence led by the prosecution, with cross examination being permitted after each witness. Once both prosecution and defence have concluded leading evidence, the case goes to summing up where firstly the prosecution and then the defence get to sum up their case based on the evidence that has been heard.

The jury is given guidance on points of law and then sent out to consider its verdict. Juries are composed of fifteen residents. In criminal law in federal courts and a minority of state court systems of the United States, a grand jury is convened to hear only testimony and evidence to determine whether there is a sufficient basis for deciding to indict the defendant and proceed toward trial. In each court district where a grand jury is required, a group of 16—23 citizens holds an inquiry on criminal complaints brought by the prosecutor to decide whether a trial is warranted based on the standard that probable cause exists that a crime was committed , in which case an indictment is issued.

In jurisdictions where the size of a jury varies, in general the size of juries tends to be larger if the crime alleged is more serious. If a grand jury rejects a proposed indictment the grand jury's action is known as a "no bill. This is so because a grand jury cannot convict a defendant. It can only decide to indict the defendant and proceed forward toward trial.

Grand juries vote to indict in the overwhelming majority of cases, and prosecutors are not prohibited from presenting the same case to a new grand jury if a "no bill" was returned by a previous grand jury. A typical grand jury considers a new criminal case every fifteen minutes. In some jurisdictions, in addition to indicting persons for crimes, a grand jury may also issue reports on matters that they investigate apart from the criminal indictments, particularly when the grand jury investigation involves a public scandal. Historically, grand juries were sometimes used in American law to serve a purpose similar to an investigatory commission.

Constitution and the Sixth Amendment require that criminal cases be tried by a jury. However, the Fourteenth Amendment extended this mandate to the states. Although the Constitution originally did not require a jury for civil cases, this led to an uproar which was followed by adoption of the Seventh Amendment , which requires a civil jury in cases where the value in dispute is greater than twenty dollars. Under the law of many states, jury trials are not allowed in small claims cases. The civil jury in the United States is a defining element of the process by which personal injury trials are handled.

In practice, even though the defendant in a criminal action is entitled to a trial by jury, most criminal actions in the U. In the Supreme Court held that the jury must be composed of at least twelve persons, although this was not necessarily extended to state civil jury trials. There is controversy over smaller juries, with proponents arguing that they are more efficient and opponents arguing that they lead to fluctuating verdicts.

Traditionally the removal of jurors based on a peremptory challenge required no justification or explanation, but the tradition has been changed by the Supreme Court where the reason for the peremptory challenge was the race of the potential juror. Since the s " scientific jury selection " has become popular.

Unanimous jury verdicts have been standard in US American law. This requirement was upheld by the Supreme Court in , but the standard was relaxed in in two criminal cases. As of over thirty states had laws allowing less than unanimity in civil cases, but Oregon and Louisiana are the only states which have laws allowing less than unanimous jury verdicts for criminal cases. The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of fact and guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge.

This practice was confirmed by rulings of the U. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona , [84] which found Arizona's practice of having the judge decide whether aggravating factors exist to make a defendant eligible for the death penalty, to be unconstitutional, and reserving the determination of whether the aggravating factors exist to be decided by the jury. However, in some states such as Alabama and Florida , the ultimate decision on the punishment is made by the judge, and the jury gives only a non-binding recommendation.

The judge can impose the death penalty even if the jury recommends life without parole. There is no set format for jury deliberations, and the jury takes a period of time to settle into discussing the evidence and deciding on guilt and any other facts the judge instructs them to determine. Deliberation is done by the jury only, with none of the lawyers, the judge, or the defendant present. The first step will typically be to find out the initial feeling or reaction of the jurors to the case, which may be by a show of hands, or via secret ballot.

The jury will then attempt to arrive at a consensus verdict. The discussion usually helps to identify jurors' views to see whether a consensus will emerge as well as areas that bear further discussion. Points often arise that were not specifically discussed during the trial. The result of these discussions is that in most cases the jury comes to a unanimous decision and a verdict is thus achieved.

In some states and under circumstances, the decision need not be unanimous. In a few states and in death penalty cases, depending upon the law, the trial jury, or sometimes a separate jury, may determine whether the death penalty is appropriate in "capital" murder cases. Usually, sentencing is handled by the judge at a separate hearing. The judge may but does not always follow the recommendations of the jury when deciding on a sentence.

Manafort juror says 'one holdout' kept jury from convicting on all counts

Jurors are selected from a jury pool formed for a specified period of time—usually from one day to two weeks—from lists of citizens living in the jurisdiction of the court. The lists may be electoral rolls i. When selected, being a member of a jury pool is, in principle, compulsory. Prospective jurors are sent a summons and are obligated to appear in a specified jury pool room on a specified date.

However, jurors can be released from the pool for several reasons including illness, prior commitments that can't be abandoned without hardship, change of address to outside the court's jurisdiction, travel or employment outside the jurisdiction at the time of duty, and others.

• Platons Höhlengleichnis und seine Bedeutung in der heutigen Medienwelt (German Edition).
• See a Problem?;
• C+D.
• Navigation menu.
• Deadly Legacy (Rose McQuinn series Book 7).

Often jurisdictions pay token amounts for jury duty and many issue stipends to cover transportation expenses for jurors. Work places cannot penalize employees who serve jury duty. Payments to jurors varies by jurisdiction. In the United States jurors for grand juries are selected from jury pools. Selection of jurors from a jury pool occurs when a trial is announced and juror names are randomly selected and called out by the jury pool clerk.

Once the list of prospective jurors has assembled in the courtroom the court clerk assigns them seats in the order their names were originally drawn. At this point the judge often will ask each prospective juror to answer a list of general questions such as name, occupation, education, family relationships, time conflicts for the anticipated length of the trial. The list is usually written up and clearly visible to assist nervous prospective jurors and may include several questions uniquely pertinent to the particular trial.

These questions are to familiarize the judge and attorneys with the jurors and glean biases, experiences, or relationships that could jeopardize the proper course of the trial. After each prospective juror has answered the general slate of questions the attorneys may ask follow-up questions of some or all prospective jurors. Each side in the trial is allotted a certain number of challenges to remove prospective jurors from consideration. Some challenges are issued during voir dire while others are presented to the judge at the end of voir dire. The judge calls out the names of the anonymously challenged prospective jurors and those return to the pool for consideration in other trials.

A jury is formed, then, of the remaining prospective jurors in the order that their names were originally chosen. Any prospective jurors not thus impaneled return to the jury pool room. Scholarly research on jury behavior in American non-capital criminal felony trials reveals that juror outcomes appear to track the opinions of the median juror, rather than the opinions of the extreme juror on the panel, although juries were required to render unanimous verdicts in the jurisdictions studied.

As much of the research on social conformity suggests, individuals tend to lose their sense of individuality when faced with powerful group forces i. Since a clear archetype for determining guilt does not exist, the criminal justice system must rely on rulings handed down by juries. Even after a decision has been made, it is virtually impossible to know whether a jury has been correct or incorrect in freeing or accusing a defendant of a crime. Although establishing the effectiveness of juries is an arduous task, contemporary research has provided partial support for the proficiency of juries as decision makers.

Evidence has shown that jurors typically take their roles very seriously. By actively processing evidence, making inferences, using common sense and personal experiences to inform their decision-making, research has indicated that jurors are effective decision makers that seek thorough understanding, rather than passive, apathetic participants unfit to serve on a jury. Evidence supporting jury effectiveness has also been illustrated in studies that investigate the parallels between judge and jury decision-making. Jurors, like most individuals, are not free from holding social and cognitive biases.

People may negatively judge individuals who do not adhere to established social norms e. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the body of people. For the term referring to "coroner's jury", see Inquest.

For other uses, see Jury disambiguation. For the s parlor game, see Jury Box game. For the film, see The Juror. Jury system in Hong Kong. This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. November Learn how and when to remove this template message.