Legal studies - juries [1]

It has been said that the use of a jury is an advantage to the accused because they may exclude any person who may not be considered sympathetic. Is this true?

• Yes, because the accused has an unlimited right to challenge.
• No, because only the prosecution has the right to challenge potential jurors.
• Yes, because both parties are entitled to access to the jury list before the trial and can research potential jurors.
• No, because after the accused has challenged a certain number, the accused can only challenge for reason.

Which of the following best describes when a jury will be used in Victoria?

• for all serious criminal offences

• for all indictable offences and serious summary offences

• for all civil and criminal matters at the consent of the parties

• for all matters heard as indictable offences and some civil matters

Which of the following describes a major advantage of the use of a jury:

• Decision making is spread over a greater number so that no one has to take responsibility.
• The jurors are only concerned with the award of damages, whereas the judge looks at the specific detail and admissibility of the evidence.
• The jury does not have to give reasons for its decisions.
• The jury does not have to apply the law.

In relation to criminal juries, which of the following is correct?

• The jury determines what evidence it will hear after being instructed by the judge as to its admissibility and relevance.
• The accused is entitled to challenge an unlimited number of jurors.
• A jury must contain both men and women.
• Jurors are not allowed to disclose any matters discussed in the course of their deliberations if they have reason to believe that any of the information is likely to be, or will be, published.

 A key role of a Supreme Court judge in the conduct of a trial by jury is to:

• decide whether the evidence presented on any point is sufficient to establish the fact alleged beyond reasonable doubt
• ensure that the hearing is conducted in accordance with established rules of evidence and procedure
•  introduce questions to extract evidence that the judge feels counsel may have overlooked
• remain detached from the proceedings

In a criminal trial in the county Court, eleven of the jurors thought that the accused was guilty and one of them thought that the accused was not guilty. Therefore, the jury may:

• return to court with a majority verdict

• return to court with a unanimous decision

• return to court with a ‘not proven’ verdict

• return to court as a ‘hung’ jury

At the end of a case, the judge has the power to direct the jury to acquit the defendant. Why is this allowed?

• Because the judge can overrule the jury
• Because the defendant is obviously not guilty
• Because the prosecution have not made a strong case against the defendant
• Because the trial has gone on far too long

A jury at the Supreme Court in a criminal trial for murder

• must first attempt to achieve a unanimous verdict, after which a majority verdict will be accepted for most criminal offences

• must deliver a unanimous verdict

• has six hours in which to reach a unanimous verdict, then ten hours in which to reach a majority verdict

• must deliver a majority verdict.

A criminal jury

• must decide a case on the balance of probabilities

• must decide only the facts

• must be empanelled for all hearings in a County Court or Supreme Court

• must return a unanimous verdict.

A criminal jury consists of:

• 10 jurors

• 11 jurors

• 12 jurors

• 13 jurors