Getting ready for Jury Duty. Did you know: The modern jury evolved out of the ancient custom of many ancient Germanic tribes whereby a group of men of good character was used to investigate crimes and/or judge the accused. The same custom evolved into the vehmic court system in medieval Germany. In Anglo-Saxon England, juries investigated crimes. After the Norman Conquest, some parts of the country preserved juries as the means of investigating crimes. The use of ordinary members of the community to consider crimes was unusual in ancient cultures, but was nonetheless also found in ancient Greece. The modern jury trial evolved out of this custom in the mid-12th century during the reign of Henry II.[5] Juries, usually 6 or 12 men, were an ancient institution even then in some parts of England, at the same time as Members consisted of representatives of the basic units of local government—hundreds (an administrative sub-division of the shire, embracing several vills) and villages. Called juries of presentment, these men testified under oath to crimes committed in their neighbourhood. The Assize of Clarendon in 1166 caused these juries to be adopted systematically throughout the country. The jury in this period was self-informing, meaning it heard very little evidence or testimony in court. Instead, jurors were recruited from the locality of the dispute and were expected to know the facts before coming to court. The source of juror knowledge could include first-hand knowledge, investigation, and less reliable sources such as rumor and hearsay.[6] John A. Makdisi argues that many concepts of English common law, including juries at least partly, derive from Islamic law. In the same period as William the Conquerer conquered England, Norman adventurers led by Robert Guiscard had taken Sicily, previously under the Arab Fatimid Caliphate. Thus, Makdisi claims, English law became influenced by the Islamic law used in Sicily under the Fatimids, including the use of the twelve man jury. Makdisi suggests that Henry IIs laws would have been influenced through people such as Thomas Brown, a member of Henrys government who had previously served in the Sicilian government.[7] Between 1166 and 1179 new procedures including a division of functions between the sheriff, the jury of local men, and the royal justices ushered in the era of the English Common Law. Sheriffs prepared cases for trial and found jurors with relevant knowledge and testimony. Jurors found a verdict by witnessing as to fact, even assessing and applying information from their own and community memory—little was written at this time and what was, such as deeds and writs, were subject to fraud. Royal justices supervised trials, answered questions as to law, and announced the courts decision which was then subject to appeal. Sheriffs executed the decision of the court. These procedures enabled Henry II to delegate authority without endowing his subordinates with too much power. (Henry II 293) In 1215 the Catholic Church removed its sanction from all forms of ordeal—procedures by which suspects up to that time were tested as to guilt (e.g., in the ordeal of hot metal, molten metal was sometimes poured into a suspected thiefs hand. If the wound healed rapidly and well, it was believed God found the suspect innocent, and if not then the suspect was found guilty). With trial by ordeal banned, establishing guilt would have been problematic had England not had forty years of judicial experience. Justices were by then accustomed to asking jurors of presentment about points of fact in assessing indictments; it was a short step to ask jurors if they concluded the accused was guilty as charged. (Henry II 358) An early reference to a jury type group in England is in a decree issued by Aethelred at Wantage (997), which provided that in every Hundred the twelve leading thegns together with the reeve shall go out and swear on the relics which are given into their hands, that they will not accuse any innocent man nor shield a guilty one.[8] The resulting Wantage Code formally recognized legal customs that were part of the Danelaw.[9] The testimonial concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case.[10] One of the earliest antecedents of modern jury systems is the jury in ancient Greece, including the city-state of Athens, where records of jury courts date back to 500 BCE. These juries voted by secret ballot and were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing the practice of judicial review. In modern justice systems, law is considered self-contained and distinct from other coercive forces, and perceived as separate from the political life of the community, but all these barriers are absent in the context of classical Athens. In practice and in conception the law and its administration are in some important respects indistinguishable from the life of the community in general.[11]
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:37:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015