JURY TRIAL (Fr. jure, sworn) is a mode of trial in the 'United Kingdom, by which a few citizens, selected for the purpose, are constituted the judges of the truth of the facts in suits between parties, and compelled to discharge this duty on the sanctity of their oath, hut in subordination to a higher judge who has distinct functions of control. Various theories have been adopted as to time origin and development of this character istic feature of the administration of justice in the United Kingdom. Jury trial does not owe its existence to any positive statute, but has grown up insensibly, and has become inextricably interwoven with the. people's habits. It was generally supposed, until recently, that our Anglo-Saxon ancestors had the credit of having nursed the germ of this vigorous plant of liberty; and a cartoon in the new houses of parliament has embodied this popular belief. Recent researches have, however, shown that jury trial. as now known and practiced, did not exist in those limes, though it has been the natural development and sequence of other rudimentary forms of trial then prevailing. Indeed, the germ of jury trial is found in human nature itself, and in some phase or other is detected in almost every form of civilization, the essence of it being a reference of dis puted facts to the impartial judgment of a few men of average understanding and of nearly the same station in life as the litigants. In ancient Rome a criminal trial was conducted before It presiding judge and a body of judices, taken from a particular class, whose duty it was to determine the fact of the guilt or innocence of the accused; but they could exercise the prerogative of mercy, which does not belong to time modern jury. The result of the forms of trial usual with the Anglo-Saxons has been summed up by Mr. Forsyth in his IliNtory of Jury Trial, and lie states these conclusions: Courts were presided over by a reeve, who had no voice in the decision, and the number of persons who sat was4 usually twelve. The assertions of parties. were admitted as conclusive, when supported by the oaths of a certain number of compurgators. The testimony of the neighborhood was appealed to for the purpose of deciding matters of general con cern. Sworn witnesses were appointed in each district, whose duty it was to attest all bargains and transactions, in order that they might be ready to give evidence in case of dispute. Every care was taken that all dealings between man and man should be as open and public as possible. It was by a gradual process of improvement that the pre cise functions of the jury were defined, and it would be beyond our limits to discuss the details of this progress. It will suffice to describe the institution of jury trial as it now exists, and has for centuries existed with little alteration.
In criminal cases in England and Ireland there are two or three kinds of juries in requisition. In all cases of sudden death, homicide, or murder, the coroner of the dis trict summons a jury of 12 men, who inquire into the circumstances of the death, and if it appear that such death was caused by the criminal misconduct of any person, the jury may find that such person was guilty of murder. This inquisition, or finding, is sufficient, without any other process, to put the alleged criminal on his trial by the petit jury; but one may proceed also against the prisoner iu the ordinary manner. In most criminal cases, the grand jury is the medium of accusation. They perform the duty of public accusers; they do not try a prisoner, but the indictments are in the first instance submitted to their consideration, for the purpose of seeing whether there is enough of doubt and suspicion to make it necessary to put the accused on his trial. Accordingly, in every county and borough of England where sessions of the peace or assizes are held for criminal trials, a jury of not less than 12, nor more than 23 men, are summoned to see that there is some foundation for each indictment. The judge first charges them—that is, gives them general directions as to particular crimes, and they hear witnesses for the prosecution only and ex parte, finding a true bill, or ignoring the bill, according as they think there is or is not a case worthy of trial against the prisoner. See GRAND JURY.
The chief duty, however, as to the trying of prisoners is discharged by the petit jury, which consists of 12 men, who are sworn to try the cause between the crown, as prose cutor, and the prisoner. Previous to this trial, the prisoner is not, as a matter of course, entitled, except in eases of treason, to a copy of the indictment, though in many cases he can indirectly obtain a copy, or at least is generally made acquainted with the par ticulars of the charge against him. Nor is the prisoner entitled, except in cases of trea son, to have a list of the witnesses who are to be brought against. him. The first thing is to arraign the prisoner at the bar, and ask him if he pleads guilty or not guilty. If he do not plead guilty, he is then put on his trial. He is not entitled to demand from the court to have a counsel to defend him, though practically there is little difficulty in pro curing one. The jury are then sworn. The number of jurors is 12, but a much larger number are summoned, and the prisoner is entitled to challenge those of the jury who, be has good cause to believe, will be hostile to him. He can challenge a certain number of these without giving any reason; but when he exceeds such number, he must state some valid reason. The prisoner is not, however, entitled beforehand, except in cases of treason, to have a list of jurors supplied to him. At the trial the prosecuting counsel begins, and makes a speech to the jury commenting on the case. He then calls his wit nesses; and it may be observed that it is a public duty for witnesses to attend, and they can be compelled, subject to fine and imprisonment, to attend and be examined. Each witness is first examined by the prosecuting counsel, then cross-examined by the prisoner or his counsel, and then re-examined by the prosecuting counsel. A witness testifies on his oath, and if he speaks falsely may be prosecuted for perjury. After the prosecu tor's case is closed the prisoner or his counsel addresses the jury, and if he has any witnesses, calls them, and they are examined, cross-examined, and re-examined in like manner. If the prisoner calls witnesses the prosecuting counsel has the right of making a speech in reply; and even where the prisoner calls no witnesses, time prosecutor can frequently insist on replying, and thus haying the last word. The judge then sums up the evidence by going over It in detail, explaining any points of law that may arise; but he carefully informs thejury that it is for them exclusively to say whether, upon the evidence as laid before them, they think the prisoner was guilty or not guilty. The jury must be unanimous in their finding. If they have a difficulty in agreeing they are locked up a reasonable time, which means generally about 6 hours—though no definite limit is fixed—without food, till they agree. If, after this reasonable time has elapsed, they are unable to agree, they are discharged without a verdict. The consequence is that a new jury are summoned, when the same process is repeated. If they find the prisoner guilty it is for the judge exclusively to pronounce the appropriate sentence, and some discretion is allowed to the judge on that point. But neither the judge nor the jury can pardon the prisoner; it is for the crown alone to do so, and practically the propriety of doing so is left to the home secretary, whose duty it is, if any applica tion, reasonably supported by evidence, is made to the crown, to inquire into it, which be does by examining the matter and consulting the judge. The settled rule is that no new trial can be had in criminal cases, even though some error may have been made by the judge or jury. The only mode of obtaining redress is by petitioning the crown to pardon the prisoner, or commute the sentence, as the case may be; and the home secre tary advises the crown a above.