When a jury returns its verdict, the foreperson hands a written note to the judge (presumably containing the verdict), then proceeds to announce the verdict publicly.
Why the redundancy?
I’m not sure I see a redundancy.
Before a jury deliberates, it is read the jury charge. When they enter the jury room to deliberate, they are given at least one copy of the jury charge. Part of the charge is the law that the jury must follow, the other part is the verdict form. This verdict form contains the question or questions that the jury must answer. After the jury reaches a verdict, it answers the question(s) on the verdict form. The verdict form goes to the judge. Judge announces the verdict.
All I know is what I’ve seen on TV… Isn’t it the jury foreperson who reads the verdict on those legal shows?
Sorry, I don’t try cases on the TV. The TV shows I’ve seen follow the foreperson reading the verdict, but the real trials I have seen have the judge reading the verdict.
There may be other jurisdictions where the foreperson reads the verdict.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In some states the verdict is handed to the judge and then back to the foreperson and the foreperson reads the verdict. I know it’s done that way in at least California, because that’s what they did when I watched the verdict of the OJ Simpson criminal trial.
In Virginia, the jury elects a foreperson when they begin to deliberate. The foreperson is responsible for filling out the verdict form. When the jury returns, the foreperson hands the verdict form to the bailiff, who hands it to the clerk. The clerk then reads the verdict.
The only time any juror speaks is if the jury is polled - that is, if they are asked to confirm individually that they agreed with the verdict that was read.
It’s not done that way in ALL of California. In Alameda County, when I was on a jury the judge handed the verdict form to the clerk, who read the verdict.
Ed
It is done this way in Louisiana too. I remember the Simpson case the clerk read the verdict. I can’t image letting the foreman read the verdict as this would give the foreman a chance to try something funny (like in Dilbert).
Typically, the judge looks at the verdict form to make sure that the form has been filled out properly. The question is not the propriety of the verdict, but only that the form is filled out correctly. For example, the judge might require the jury to put .00 after a dollar amount or to make sure that the form has been signed by the foreman, etc. The judge will allow the lawyers to review the form and make objections, but the point is to make sure that what is read in public is what the intent of the jury is and that the intent is correctly reflected on the verdict form.