Jury, a body of private citizens, sworn to try a question of fact, or to assess the amount of a payment legally due. In almost all systems of law the ordinary citizen or freeman is called to take some part in the administration of justice. The judices of Roman law are sometimes compared with modern jurymen; and the judex was in fact a private citizen, empowered to try questions of fact and law under the general directions of a superior magistrate. In communities of Teutonic origin, and especially in England, the people—i.e. the qualified freemen, or a selection from their number—performed many important duties in civil disputes and criminal trials. They acted as accusers, to 'present' offenders against the law; they decided what action should be taken on a proof by witnesses, compurgators, or ordeal; they were themselves witnesses to the acts by which a title to land was established; even sales of goods were, in old time, witnessed by a kind of jury of townsmen. Many persons suppose that trial by jury, in the modern sense, is as old as King Alfred; and a cartoon in the Houses of Parliament embodies this popular belief. Dr Stnbbbs (see his Constitutional History, chap. xiii.) attaches great importance to the popular element in the ancient courts; but he traces the modern jury system to a Frankish origin. Inquiry by sworn recognitors, as described in the Frank Capitularies, may have been adopted in part from the Roman imperial legislation. Introduced into England by the Norman Conqueror, this form of inquiry was developed into trial by jury under the influence of the Plantagenet kings and their legal advisers. In course of time the 'juratores' ceased to be regarded as witnesses, or as judges of law and custom; they acted on proofs laid before them, and they took the law from a presiding judge. The partisans of royal prerogative would have gone further; they would have deprived the jurymen of their independence, and compelled them to find the verdict dictated by the judge or the advisers of the crown. After a long struggle the independence of the jury was vindicated; while at the same time the judges were freed from subservience to the crown; the functions of judge and jury were accurately distinguished; and the rules of evidence were developed into a rational system. Trial by jury is prized as one of the chief safeguards of the liberties of the subject; it is admitted to be the best mode of trial in criminal cases of importance, and in those civil cases where damages may have to be assessed for wrongs which affect the person, family, or reputation of the plaintiff. In ordinary mercantile cases the tendency in England is to dispense with juries; the adjustment of property rights is also left, for the most part, to the judges. In political cases special importance attaches to the rules of law which secure the selection of a fairly representative jury. It is not possible under modern law to pack a jury with partisans of the government. In those parts of Ireland where popular feeling is hostile to the government, counsel for the crown have been frequently charged with making an unfair use of their right to order a juror to 'stand by' when his name is called; but it may be well to point out that jurymen are liable to be intimidated by the people, in cases in which party feeling is deeply aroused in Ireland, and that the democratic spirit is not always favourable to an impartial administration of justice in any country.
In the modern criminal practice of England and Ireland several forms of jury are in use. The Coroner's Jury consists of twelve men, usually householders, summoned by a peace-officer acting under the coroner's warrant, to inquire in cases of sudden death, &c. If their inquisition, or recorded verdict, charges any person with crime, the person accused must be arrested and brought to trial. The Grand Jury is a body of not less than twelve and not more than twenty-three men, summoned by the sheriff to consider the indictments to be preferred at assizes, quarter sessions, or the Central Criminal Court. They hear only the witnesses for the prosecution; if they think the evidence wholly insufficient, they 'ignore' the indictment, and the foreman indorses it with the words 'no true bill.' If they think there is a case which the accused ought to answer, they find 'a true bill,' and the accused is thereupon arraigned before a Petty Jury, who inquire whether he is guilty or not. The petty jury consists of twelve men, householders or owners of property, whose names are called over from the panel, or parchment list prepared by the sheriff. The prisoner may challenge the array—i.e. he may allege that the panel is unfairly made up. He may challenge peremptorily thirty-five jurors in a case of treason, twenty in a case of felony; and either the crown or the accused may challenge any number of jurors for cause shown. When twelve men have been sworn, counsel and witnesses for the prosecution and defence address themselves to the jury; the judge interposes to decide points of law, or to remind counsel or witnesses of their duty; at the close of the trial he sums up the evidence, and states clearly to the jury the question they have to decide. If the jury retire to consider their verdict an officer is sworn to keep them 'without meat, drink, or fire;' but the judge may allow them to have a fire and reasonable refreshment. The verdict of the jury must be unanimous; and it is, generally speaking, conclusive; the prisoner cannot be tried again on the same charge. Common jurors do not receive any remuneration. On an indictment or criminal information for libel Fox's Act, passed in 1792, empowers the jury to find a general verdict on the whole matter in issue. The judges, in certain political cases, had directed the jury to find the defendants guilty on proof of publication of the paper charged to be a libel; and the act closes the last stage in the struggle for the independence of juries in criminal cases.
Civil cases which come before a judge and jury may be tried by a common jury of twelve men, whose names are called from the sheriff's panel, as in criminal cases. Both parties have the right of challenge to the array, or to the name of an individual juror, for cause shown. Either party may demand a special jury—i.e. a jury chosen from a special list, in which are entered the names of persons possessing a property qualification higher than is required in the case of common jurors. Special jurors are paid; the payment is usually at the rate of one guinea for each case. The jury must be unanimous; but the verdict of a majority may be taken by consent of the parties. If the case is compromised a juror is withdrawn by consent, and the case comes to an end. In the county court small civil cases are sometimes tried by the judge and a jury of five. For the use of the term jury in connection with manorial courts, see MANOR.
In Scotland forty-five jurors are summoned in criminal cases, of whom fifteen are chosen by lot to try the case; the verdict of a majority suffices. The crown and the accused have each five peremptory challenges; and any number of jurors may be challenged on cause shown. In some points the position of the accused is better than in England. He is entitled to have a copy of the indictment, a list of the witnesses to be brought forward against him, and a list of the jurors—advantages which an English prisoner has no legal right to demand, unless he is accused of treason or misprision of treason. Evidence is first given on both sides; the counsel for the prosecution then addresses the jury, and the prisoner's counsel speaks last. In England the prosecuting counsel may reply if evidence is given on behalf of the accused; and the Attorney-general or Solicitor-general claims the right to reply, even if no such evidence is given. Again, the jury in Scotland may find the charge 'not proven;' and this verdict is so far final that the prisoner cannot be put on his trial a second time on the same charge. This rule gives the accused an additional chance of escape; but there is something to be said against the expediency of permitting a verdict which leaves the question of guilt or innocence undecided, and allows the accused to go free without clearing his character. Trial by jury in civil cases was no part of the ancient practice of the Court of Session—it was introduced in 1815 by an act which adopted most of the English rules. As in England, the jury in civil cases consists of twelve persons; but unanimity is not essential. If, after being kept three hours in deliberation, nine or more of the jury agree on a verdict, their verdict is taken as that of the jury. If, after being inclosed nine hours, the jury cannot agree, the judge is entitled to discharge them, and generally does so. The judge may allow the jury refreshment after they are locked up to deliberate.
In Ireland the jury laws are substantially the same as in England. Until the passing of the Act of 1871 (Lord O'Hagan's Act), 34 and 35 Vict. chap. 65, modified by 39 and 40 Vict. chap. 21, by which the empanelling and summoning of juries is made the subject of more stringent provisions, the law in England and Ireland was precisely similar. But special legislation has from time to time withdrawn from the consideration of juries in Ireland for a limited period certain crimes of an agrarian or 'quasi-political' character in times of great national excitement. By the Crimes Act, 50 and 51 Vict. chap. 20, special power, extending as high as that of imposing sentences of six months' imprisonment, on conviction of certain specified offences, were conferred on specially constituted magisterial courts sitting without a jury. And special juries for the trial of criminal charges may be empanelled in certain cases.
The Grand Jury in Ireland was till 1898 entrusted not only with the ordinary criminal business performed by the grand jury in England, but also with the entire local government of the country, county by county, much as the same was formerly carried on in England by the justices in Quarter Sessions; but the Irish Local Government Act of 1898 withdrew all its administrative functions, and conferred them on County Councils elected triennially. The authority of the Irish grand juries dated from Anglo-Norman times; and laws, custom, and tradition of 700 years were summed up and ascertained only in 1836 by the Irish Grand Jury Act.
In the United States English principles have been adopted; and trial by jury is made part of the constitution in most of the states. There are some states in which the jurors are empowered to decide questions of law in criminal cases, and in some the judge is forbidden to charge the jury on the facts. A verdict can be returned only on the unanimous vote of a jury; and, with a view to securing impartiality, each juror is required to swear that he is free from any preconceived opinion as to the case on trial, and has no information calculated to influence his decision. The law permits the challenging of individual jurors, both peremptorily and for cause; and this right has frequently been grossly abused for the purpose of delaying justice, as, for example, on the trial of the murderers of Dr Cronin at Chicago (1889). The British colonies have framed their jury laws, for the most part, on the English model.
Jury trial has been established in France (where the verdict of a majority is sufficient), and in many other continental countries, in most of which the institution will be found to bear a general resemblance to the English jury. There are, of course, endless differences in detail. For the particular rules as to qualifications of jurors, &c. in England, reference may be made to Archbold's Practice and Stephen's Digest of Criminal Procedure.