If you watch any courtroom dramas, you’re probably familiar with this ritual:
The jury files into the courtroom.
The judge says “Foreman, has the jury reached a verdict?”
Foreman replies “We have, your honor.”
Foreman gives paper to the bailiff. Bailiff gives the paper to the judge, who reads it over. Then the judge either announces the verdict or hands it to the court clerk to announce it, after commanding the defendant to stand up.
Is this how courts really operate? The verdict in OJ Simpson’s murder trial had some kind of similar rigmarole, but I don’t remember it precisely.
I’m sure it varies from one jurisdiction to another, but what would happen if a member of the jury shouted “He’s not guilty!” as they were entering the courtroom?
TAMPA — Confronted Friday with an errant yet remorseful juror whose misbehavior could have ruined a death-penalty murder trial, a judge chose a punishment that fit the crime.
But it could be argued that the judge’s order for the offender — report for jury duty one week a month for the next three months — was a more cruel punishment than jail.
Back in October, would-be juror Vishnu P. Singh was caught researching a highly publicized murder case during jury selection. Over lunch, he told other jurors what he’d done. One of them reported him.
Singh didn’t know it, but he had messed with the worst possible judge. Hillsborough Circuit Judge William Fuente was presiding over the first-degree murder trial of Kenneth Ray Jackson, 30, charged with raping and fatally stabbing a 50-year-old Seffner mother of three in 2007.
When I was a jury foreman, the judge asked if we had reached a verdict, I said we had, and he then asked me to read it aloud. I read our verdict to the court, and then handed the written verdict who handed it to the judge.
I’ve always wondered… what is the purpose of showing the verdict to the judge first? Has there ever been a case where the judge looked at the verdict, and then for whatever reason did not allow the jury to announce their verdict?
I was a jury foreman once about 35 years ago (at age 20, I was the youngest person on the jury). After the deliberation, we all signed some sort of statement that was then given to the judge by the clerk after we returned to the courtroom. The judge had us all stand while he read the statement. Bear in mind that this was a paternity suit (which are all but non-existent since the advent of DNA testing) and it was not so much of a verdict as it was a “finding” or “pronouncement”.
The judge will want to inspect the verdict forms to make sure they’ve been filled out correctly, and that the jury followed the instructions correctly, before announcing a potentially flawed verdict.
I have served, and been a foreman, on juries in the UK. We do it slightly differently here, in that there is no piece of paper.
When everyone is back in place the judge asks if the jury elected a foreman, and then asks “Have you reached a verdict?” If the answer is yes, he will then ask “Is that the verdict of you all?” If a minority verdict was allowed it would be different of course.
After answering the two questions the foreman is asked “How do you find the defendant? Guilty or not guilty.”
The foreman gives the verdict and that is that.
We too have had mis-trials where a juror was tweeting or looking stuff up on t’internet. They get a pretty stern warning now.
That’s pretty much exactly it around here, with some occasional variations (e.g. after reading the verdict confirming with the jurors “Is this your unanimous verdict?”).
It definitely happens. Remember, some verdict forms are long and complicated. Thosen20 seconds waiting for the judge to review the verdict seem like an eternity.
Canadian practice follows the English practice outlined by bob++ - no slip of paper, judge gets the verdict same time as everyone else in the courtroom.
As I recall from the one jury I served on (in Chicago) the judge asked the jury foreman for the verdict and it was done verbally, although there was also some paperwork involved in there. Basically, what beowulff said.
I’m in San Diego and have been on one jury for deliberations and verdict.
I’m not recalling the full sequence of actions once we had agreed on verdicts, (what I am not recalling is how the verdict forms got to the judge), but I definitely recall the following:
The foreman was not addressed at all.
The jury was not polled (presumably related to it having been a very quick trial.)
The judge looked at the verdict forms, then gave them to his clerk.
The clerk read the verdicts aloud.
The judge thanked the jury members for their time and released us.
In my (Commonwealth) jurisdiction, the bailiff sits outside the soundproof jury room. If they have a verdict, they ring a bell and he goes in and they tell him they have a verdict, but not what it is.
The bailiff then contacts the judge and all the other players who assemble in the courtroom, when the judge says “I understand we have a verdict?”, to which the bailiff says yes. The judge orders the jury back into the room.
The jury parades into the room, and their names are called over by the judge’s associate like a roll call (unless there is a security issue). The associate then says, “Ladies and gentlemen, are you agreed upon your verdict?” to which the foreman says yes.
The associate says “How do you find the accused on the charge of xxx, guilty or not guilty?”
The foreman says “Guilty, Your Honour”, or as the case may be.
The associate says “So says your speaker, so say you all?”, to which all the jurors say yes.
The judge thanks the jury for their service, discharges them, and other formalities follow.
I’ve always wondered about the background behind the black silk cap that British judges still (officially) have, which was used to pronounce a sentence of death when the UK still had capital punishment. When the judge was going to use the death penalty, he would put the cap on his wig. Where did it come from, why is it done like this?
That was pretty much my experience as a jury foreman several years ago (Federal trial in California). I filled out the jury verdict form and signed it, then I had to stand up in court and read our decisions out loud and I think the judge asked if this was a unanimous decision. The clerk collected the form, the judge thanked us for our service and we were excused.
Also, where did US courts get gavels from? British courts have never had them and it always irritates me when (even UK!) TV programmes show UK courts using gavels, because it’s seen in American courtrooms and so presumed to take place here.