In a jury trial under the US criminal justice system, is the jury more important than the judge?
Judges rise along with all others present when the jury enters and exits the courtroom. Isn't that an indication that the judge shows deference to the jury, and by extension, means that the jury is more important than the judge?
No. Typically the Judge enters last and exits first (there are exceptions), it is his courtroom, he/she presides. The jury is but one facet of a jury trial. It is a triune effort: Lawyers present the case and defense, the jury renders its verdict, and the Judge runs the show.
Absent either of these three, there is no jury trial.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 14, 2018 5:56 AM MDT
The fundamental difference in a bench trial (A case presented before a judge without a jury) and a jury trial is this: A jury is the decider of what is true in the case. The judge becomes the arbiter of what will or will not be seen or heard in the proceedings and how law is applied to the arguments presented.
Yes, I know all of that already. The judge would have to be in the courtroom already in order to rise prior to the jury entering it, in fact, it's been my experience that the judge is the person who not only calls everyone to rise for the jury's entry, the judge also announces that entry. What I'm asking is whether or not you think that means the jury is more important than the judge. ~
As far as who is in control and in charge, it's the judge. Nothing escapes his/her attention and nothing is done without input or permission from the judge. The jury is treated as honored guests by the judge and the officers of the court. They are always handled with kid gloves and are given every courtesy the court can extend. This is respect the court shows to the juror as thanks for the willingness to serve. All of that aside, the fate of the defendant is in the hands of the jury. That to me, is the greatest responsibility and power. The legal minds deferring to we the people to render judgement by one's peers.
Thank you for the dissertation. Once again, off topic. I'm aware that the jury is not in charge of the trial proceedings, that's not what the question is asking. ~
Once again, you're not reading the answer. The trial is about the verdict and the jury makes the decision. Why not ask a defense attorney who holds the greater importance? For twelve people who observe and say nothing, they say it all.
I've read every word you've written. If you want to post a different question of your own, fine, go ahead a do so. Mine is already posted and doesn't need to be altered, especially not altered to fit off-topic answers. ~
Based on the following two realities, I'm not sure a simple "Yes" or "No" answer would be dispositive:
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.
Reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict, or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. This procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.
Edit: a judge may not reverse a "not-guilty" verdict by a jury.
This post was edited by tom jackson at April 14, 2018 3:37 PM MDT
The jury has more power than the judge. The jury can acquit a defendant because they think the law is unjust, even if only in this one instance. The judge can't do that.
Very few people know that, and if it slips out that you know it, they won't let you be on the jury.
Don Barzini 