Misplaced Pages

#427572

63-576: Canonteign Falls is a waterfall in the historic tything of Canonteign in the Teign Valley and Dartmoor National Park near Chudleigh , South Devon , England . It is 220 feet (70 m) high and is one of the highest waterfalls in England . It was created in 1890 by diverting a stream over the edge of a cliff. 50°37′47″N 3°39′05″W  /  50.6296°N 3.6515°W  / 50.6296; -3.6515 This Devon location article

126-423: A praetor performing many of the duties of a judge. High government officials and their relatives were barred from acting as judices, due to conflicts of interest. Those previously found guilty of serious crimes (felonies) were also barred as were gladiators for hire, who likely were hired to resolve disputes through trial by combat . The law was as follows: The peregrine praetor (literally, traveling judge) within

189-412: A bias. These juries differed from the modern sort by being self-informing; instead of getting information through a trial, the jurors were required to investigate the case themselves. In the 12th century, Henry II took a major step in developing the jury system. Henry II set up a system to resolve land disputes using juries. A jury of twelve free men were assigned to arbitrate in these disputes. As with

252-747: A circuit. A criminal accused by this jury was given a trial by ordeal . The Church banned participation of clergy in trial by ordeal in 1215. Without the legitimacy of religion, trial by ordeal collapsed. The juries under the assizes began deciding guilt as well as providing accusations. The same year, trial by jury became an explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta . Article 39 of Magna Carta read: Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It

315-529: A crime was not forthcoming, his tithing was fined; if he was not part of the frankpledge, the whole town was subject to the fine. Unlike areas dominated by Wessex , Kent had been settled by Jutes rather than Saxons , and retained elements of its historical identity as a separate and wealthy kingdom into the Middle Ages. While Wessex and Mercia eventually grouped their hundreds into Shires , Kent grouped hundreds into lathes . Sussex , which had also been

378-590: A link between the king’s reforms and the legal system of the Kingdom of Sicily . A Swabian ordinance of 1562 called for the summons of jurymen ( urtheiler ), and various methods were in use in Emmendingen , Oppenau , and Oberkirch . Hauenstein 's charter of 1442 secured the right to be tried in all cases by 24 fellow equals, and in Freiburg the jury was composed of 30 citizens and councilors. The modern jury trial

441-525: A separate kingdom , similarly grouped its hundreds into rapes . The different choice of terminology continued to the level of the tithing; in Kent, parts of Surrey , and Sussex, the equivalent term was a borgh , borow , or borough (not to be confused with borough in its more usual sense of a chartered or privileged town); their equivalent to the tithingman was therefore a borsholder , borough-holder or headborough . The Norman Conquest introduced

504-528: A summary proceeding with a panel of three lay magistrates or a district judge sitting alone), unless they are tried alongside indictable or either way offences that are themselves tried by jury, but the defendant has a right to demand a jury trial for either way offences. The situation is similar in Scotland; whereas in Northern Ireland even summary offences carry a right to jury trial, with some exceptions. In

567-412: A system in which fact finding is concentrated in a single trial rather than multiple hearings, and appellate review of trial court decisions is greatly limited. Jury trials are of far less importance (or of no importance) in countries that do not have a common law system. Ancient Athens had a mechanism, called dikastaí , to assure that no one could select jurors for their own trial. For normal cases,

630-412: A tithing meant the households in an area comprising ten hides. The heads of each of those households were referred to as tithingmen ; historically they were assumed to all be males, and older than 12 (an adult, in the context of the time). Each tithingman was individually responsible for the actions and behaviour of all the members of the tithing, by a system known as frankpledge . If a person accused of

693-496: A unanimous decision has not been made within two hours. Since 1943, verdicts of not guilty for murder and treason have also been included, but must be deliberated for six hours. The Northern Territory has allowed majority verdicts of 10-2, 10-1 and 9-1 since 1963 for all charges. Deliberation must go for at least six hours before delivering a majority verdict. The Queensland Jury Act 1995 (s 59F) allows majority verdicts for all crimes except for murder and other offences that carry

SECTION 10

#1732885027428

756-407: Is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Tything The noun tithing breaks down as ten + thing , which is to say, a thing (an assembly) of the households who live in an area that comprises ten hides . Comparable words are Danish herredthing for a hundred , and English husting for a single household. Sound changes in the prehistory of English are responsible for

819-448: Is an important part. Jury trials in criminal cases were a protected right in the original United States Constitution and the Fifth , Sixth , and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution extend the right to a jury trial for both criminal and civil matters and a grand jury for serious cases. In most common law jurisdictions, the jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case, while

882-668: Is needed to use them. All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection; however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels in each state are not all the same. Until 1987 New South Wales had twenty peremptory challenges for each side where the offence was murder, and eight for all other cases. In 1987 this was lowered to three peremptory challenges per side, the same amount allowed in South Australia . Eight peremptory challenges are allowed for both counsels for all offences in Queensland . Victoria , Tasmania and

945-569: Is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject. The first paragraph of the Act that abolished the Star Chamber repeats the clause on the right of a citizen to be judged by his peers: WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that

1008-635: Is one of the first countries in Latin America that has implemented trial by jury. Although it has a civil law process, since November 2015, it has a jury system for serious criminal cases. Section 80 of the Australian Constitution provides that: "The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence

1071-493: Is the father, brother, or son of a person who is or has been a member of the Senate, or who is overseas. In classical Islamic jurisprudence , litigants in court may obtain notarized statements from between three and twelve witnesses. When the statements of all witnesses are consistent, the notaries will certify their unanimous testimony in a legal document, which may be used to support the litigant's claim. The notaries serve to free

1134-482: Is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury : No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land. Although it says "and or by

1197-450: The ACT requires unanimous verdicts. Since 1927 South Australia has permitted majority verdicts of 11-1 (or 10-1 or 9-1 in cases where the jury has been reduced) in criminal trials if a unanimous verdict cannot be reached in four hours. These are accepted in all cases except for guilty verdicts if the defendant is on trial for murder or treason . Victoria has accepted majority verdicts with

1260-518: The Northern Territory allow for six. Western Australia allows three peremptory challenges per side unless there is more than one accused in which case the prosecution can peremptorily challenge 3 times the number of accused and each accused has 3 peremptory challenges. In Australia, majority verdicts are allowed in South Australia , Victoria , Western Australia , Tasmania , the Northern Territory , New South Wales and Queensland , while

1323-752: The Prussian Ministry of Justice proposed to abolish the jury and replace it with the mixed system, causing a significant political debate. In the Weimar Republic the jury was abolished by the Emminger Reform of 4 January 1924. Between 1948 and 1950 in American-occupied Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany , Bavaria returned to the jury trial as it had existed before the 1933 emergency decrees, but they were again abolished by

SECTION 20

#1732885027428

1386-532: The United States , jury trials are available in both civil and criminal cases. In Canada , an individual charged with an indictable offence may elect to be tried by a judge alone in a provincial court, by judge alone in a superior court, or by judge and jury in a superior court; summary offences cannot be tried by jury. In England and Wales , offences are classified as summary, indictable, or either way; jury trials are not available for summary offences (using instead

1449-575: The Viking occupation: "The Scandinavians, when not on the Viking warpath, were a litigious people and loved to get together in the thing [governing assembly] to hear legal argument. They had no professional lawyers, but many of their farmer-warriors, like Njáll Þorgeirsson , the truth-teller, were learned in folk custom and in its intricate judicial procedure. A Danish town in England often had, as its main officers, twelve hereditary 'law men.' The Danes introduced

1512-479: The judge from the time-consuming task of hearing the testimony of each eyewitness himself, and their documents serve to legally authenticate each oral testimony. The Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence requires two notaries to collect a minimum of twelve eyewitness statements in certain legal cases, including those involving unregistered marriages and land disputes. John Makdisi has compared this to English Common Law jury trials under King Henry II , surmising

1575-819: The 1950 Unification Act ( Vereinheitlichungsgesetz ) for the Federal Republic. In 1979, the United States tried the East German LOT Flight 165 hijacking suspects in the United States Court for Berlin in West Berlin, which declared the defendants had the right to a jury trial under the United States Constitution , and hence were tried by a West German jury. According to George Macaulay Trevelyan in A Shortened History of England , during

1638-514: The 19th century, and tithings and hundreds have never been formally abolished. Jury system A jury trial , or trial by jury , is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact . It is distinguished from a bench trial , in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Jury trials are increasingly used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in many common law judicial systems, but not all. Juries or lay judges have also been incorporated into

1701-451: The King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land ... In 1670 two Quakers charged with unlawful assembly , William Penn and William Mead , were found not guilty by a jury. The judge then fined the jury for contempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact and removed them to prison until the fine

1764-696: The Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way. During the mid-14th century, persons who had sat on the Presenting Jury (i.e., in modern parlance, the grand jury ) were forbidden to sit on the trial jury for that crime. 25 Edward III stat 5., c3 (1353). Medieval juries were self-informing, in that individuals were chosen as jurors because they either knew

1827-458: The Saxon system, these men were charged with uncovering the facts of the case on their own rather than listening to arguments in court. Henry II also introduced what is now known as the " grand jury " through his Assize of Clarendon . Under the assize, a jury of free men was charged with reporting any crimes that they knew of in their hundred to a "justice in eyre", a judge who moved between hundreds on

1890-412: The Senate, or who has fought or shall fight as a gladiator for hire ... or who has been condemned by the judicial process and a public trial whereby he cannot be enrolled in the Senate, or who is less than thirty or more than sixty years of age, or who does not have his residence in the city of Rome or within one mile of it, or who is the father, brother, or son of any above-described magistrate, or who

1953-423: The United States, because jury trials tend to be high profile, the general public tends to overestimate the frequency of jury trials. Approximately 150,000 jury trials are conducted in state courts annually, and an additional 5,000 jury trials are conducted in federal courts. Two-thirds of jury trials are criminal trials, while one-third are civil and "other" (e.g., family, municipal ordinance, traffic). Nevertheless,

Canonteign Falls - Misplaced Pages Continue

2016-474: The absolute monarchies in Europe contain, at present, so illegal and despotic a tribunal. While so many terrors hung over the people, no jury durst have acquitted a man, when the court was resolved to have him condemned. The practice also, of not confronting witnesses to the prisoner, gave the crown lawyers all imaginable advantage against him. And, indeed, there scarcely occurs an instance, during all these reigns, that

2079-422: The consent of the people. According to some sources, in the time of Edward III, "by the law of the land" had been substituted "by due process of law", which in those times was a trial by twelve peers. In 1215, Magna Carta further secured defendants the right to a judgement of "reputable men of the neighbourhood"/"their equals" by stating that For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to

2142-408: The courts were made up of dikastai of up to 500 citizens. For capital cases—those that involved death, loss of liberty, exile, loss of civil rights, or seizure of property—the trial was before a jury of 1,001 to 1,501 dikastai . In such large juries, they rule by majority. Juries were appointed by lot. Jurists cast a ceramic disk with an axle in its middle: the axle was either hollow or solid. Thus

2205-667: The defendant to waive their right to a jury trial, thus leading to a bench trial . Jury trials tend to occur only when a crime is considered serious. In some jurisdictions, such as France and Brazil , jury trials are reserved, and compulsory, for the most severe crimes and are not available for civil cases. In Brazil, trials by jury are applied in cases of voluntary crimes against life, such as first and second degree murder, forced abortion and instigation of suicide, even if only attempted. In others, jury trials are only available for criminal cases and very specific civil cases ( malicious prosecution , civil fraud and false imprisonment ). In

2268-435: The defendant was guilty or not guilty, but they had a third choice: "Guilty, but not to be punished", since Alexander II believed that justice without morality was wrong. In France and some countries organized in the same fashion, the jury and several professional judges sit together to determine guilt first. Then, if guilt is determined, they decide the appropriate penalty. Some jurisdictions with jury trials allow

2331-468: The degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to

2394-536: The discipline and rigor needed to limit raw discretion of judges and other bureaucrats. In particular, he praises the adversarial nature of the American system as a more effective way to uncover truths than the judge-led process in Europe. He further argues that being face-to-face in open court can help to bring humanity into the courtroom, by reminding decision-makers that everyone involved are humans with souls. Overall, jury use has been increasing worldwide. Argentina

2457-481: The feudal system, which quickly displaced the importance of the hundred as an administrative unit. With the focus on manorial courts for administration and minor justice, tithings came to be seen as subdivisions of a manor . The later break-down of the feudal system did not detract from this, as the introduction of Justices of the Peace lead to petty sessions displacing many of the administrative and judicial functions of

2520-468: The first part of the word looking so different from the word ten . In the West Germanic dialects which became Old English , n had a tendency to elide when positioned immediately before a th . The noun is not to be confused with the verb to tithe , its present participle tithing , nor the act of tithing , though they partly share the same origin. The term originated in the 10th century, when

2583-445: The gravity of their offence. To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in

Canonteign Falls - Misplaced Pages Continue

2646-649: The habit of making committees among the free men in court, which perhaps made England favorable ground for the future growth of the jury system out of a Frankish custom later introduced by the Normans." The English king Æthelred the Unready set up an early legal system through the Wantage Code of Ethelred, one provision of which stated that the twelve leading thegns (minor nobles) of each wapentake (a small district) were required to swear that they would investigate crimes without

2709-533: The judge determines the law. These "peers of the accused" are responsible for listening to a dispute, evaluating the evidence presented, deciding on the facts, and making a decision in accordance with the rules of law and their jury instructions . Typically, the jury only judges a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but the actual penalty is set by the judge. Following the judicial reform of Alexander II in Russia , unlike in modern jury trials, jurors decided not only whether

2772-441: The jury and the barons, and only under the rule of laws that the juries and barons found acceptable), the kings, through the royal judges, began to extend their control over the jury and the kingdom. In David Hume 's History of England , he tells something of the powers that the kings had accumulated in the times after Magna Carta, the prerogatives of the crown and the sources of great power with which these monarchs counted: One of

2835-401: The law of the land", this in no manner can be interpreted as if it were enough to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen. The law of the land was the consuetudinary law , based on the customs and consent of John's subjects, and since they did not have Parliament in those times, this meant that neither the king nor the barons could make a law without

2898-419: The legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. The use of jury trials, which evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems, has had a profound impact on the nature of American civil procedure and criminal procedure rules, even if a bench trial is actually contemplated in a particular case. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly demanded has given rise to

2961-505: The majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury in the sense that Roman judges were civilian, lay and not professionals. Capital trials were held in front of hundreds or thousands of 'juries' in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Athenian trials. Roman law provided for the yearly selection of judices, who would be responsible for resolving disputes by acting as jurors, with

3024-557: The manorial courts. By the Reformation , civil parishes had replaced the manor as the most important local administrative concept, and tithings came to be seen as a parish subdivision. Frankpledge eventually evolved into both the Jury system and the petty constabulary , but tithings themselves had lost their practical significance, and fell into disuse. Despite this, active tithings continued to be found in some parts of rural England well into

3087-475: The most ancient and most established instruments of power was the court of Star Chamber , which possessed an unlimited discretionary authority of fining, imprisoning, and inflicting corporal punishment, and whose jurisdiction extended to all sorts of offenses, contempts, and disorders, that lay not within reach of the common law. The members of this court consisted of the privy council and the judges; men who all of them enjoyed their offices during pleasure: And when

3150-405: The next ten days after this law is passed by the people or plebs shall provide for the selection of 450 persons in this State who have or have had a knight's census ... provided that he does not select a person who is or has been plebeian tribune, quaestor, triumvir capitalis, military tribune in any of the first four legions, or triumvir for granting and assigning lands, or who is or has been in

3213-422: The parties and the facts, or they had the duty to discover them. This spared the government the cost of fact-finding. Over time, English juries became less self-informing and relied more on the trial itself for information on the case. Jurors remained free to investigate cases on their own until the 17th century. Magna Carta being forgotten after a succession of benevolent reigns (or, more probably, reigns limited by

SECTION 50

#1732885027428

3276-535: The passing of the Jury Trials Amending Act of 1833 (NSW) (2 William IV No 12). The voir dire system of examining the jury pool before selection is not permitted in Australia as it violates the privacy of jurors. Therefore, though it exists, the right to challenge for cause during jury selection cannot be employed much. Peremptory challenges are usually based on the hunches of counsel and no reason

3339-517: The play, the innovation is brought about by the goddess Athena , who summons twelve citizens to sit as jury. The god Apollo takes part in the trial as the advocate for the defendant Orestes and the Furies as prosecutors for the slain Clytemnestra . In the event the jury is split six to six , Athena dictates that the verdict should henceforth be for acquittal. From the beginning of the republic and in

3402-431: The prince himself was present, he was the sole judge, and all the others could only interpose with their advice. There needed but this one court in any government, to put an end to all regular, legal, and exact plans of liberty. For who durst set himself in opposition to the crown and ministry, or aspire to the character of being a patron of freedom, while exposed to so arbitrary a jurisdiction? I much question, whether any of

3465-413: The rise of plea bargaining) were "unwitting and reflexive, generally wasteful of public resources and, because of the absence of trained professionals, little more than slow guilty pleas themselves", and that the guilty-plea system that emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century was a superior, more cost-effective method of achieving fair outcomes. Robert Burns argues that the jury trial provides

3528-472: The same conditions since 1994, though deliberations must have gone for at least six hours before a majority verdict can be made. Western Australia accepted majority verdicts in 1957 for all trials except where the crime is murder or has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment: a 10-2 verdict is accepted. Majority verdicts of 10-2 have been allowed in Tasmania since 1936 for all cases, except murder and treason, if

3591-419: The sovereign, or the ministers, were ever disappointed in the issue of a prosecution. Timid juries, and judges who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to second all the views of the crown. And as the practice was anciently common of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the direction of these dependent judges; it

3654-512: The state. In Constance the jury trial was suppressed by decree of the Habsburg monarchy in 1786. The Frankfurt Constitution of the failed Revolutions of 1848 called for jury trials for "the more serious crimes and all political offenses", but was never implemented after the Frankfurt Parliament was dissolved by Württemberg dragoons . An 1873 draft on criminal procedure produced by

3717-403: The vast majority of criminal cases are settled by plea bargain , which bypasses the jury trial. Some commentators contend that the guilty-plea system (and the high costs incurred in trials) unfairly coerces defendants into relinquishing their right to a jury trial. Others contend that there never was a golden age of jury trials, but rather that juries in the early nineteenth century (before

3780-480: The way they voted was kept secret because the jurists would hold their disk by the axle by thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether its axle was hollow or solid. Since Periclean times, jurists were compensated for their sitting in court, with the amount of one day's wages. The institution of trial by jury was ritually depicted by Aeschylus in The Eumenides , the third and final play of his Oresteia trilogy. In

3843-564: Was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes. The first trials by civilian juries of 12 in the colony of New South Wales were held in 1824, following a decision of the NSW Supreme Court on 14 October 1824. The NSW Constitution Act of 1828 effectively terminated trial by jury for criminal matters. Jury trials for criminal matters revived with

SECTION 60

#1732885027428

3906-523: Was first introduced in the Rhenish provinces in 1798, with a court consisting most commonly of 12 citizens ( Bürger ). The system whereby citizens were tried by their peers chosen from the entire community in open court was gradually superseded by a system of professional judges in Germany, in which the process of investigation was more or less confidential and judgements were issued by judges appointed by

3969-548: Was paid. Edward Bushel, a member of the jury, nonetheless refused to pay the fine. Bushel petitioned the Court of Common Pleas for a writ of habeas corpus . The ruling in the Bushel's Case was that a jury could not be punished simply on account of the verdict it returned. Many British colonies, including the United States , adopted the English common law system in which trial by jury

#427572