LAW 18: An Analysis of the Magna Carta, Jury System, and Misconduct

This report delves into the historical context of the Magna Carta, its significance as a foundational legal document, and its influence on the development of the jury system. It examines the role of the jury, the definition and causes of juror misconduct, including hung juries and jury tampering, and the impact of such misconduct on public confidence in the legal system. Furthermore, the report analyzes proposed reforms to improve jury trials, such as allowing jurors to question witnesses, discuss evidence during trials, and receive simplified jury instructions. The report also includes relevant case studies and explores the Criminal Justice and Court Act, aiming to enhance juror comprehension and promote more accurate and principled verdicts.

Running head: LAW
Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW
1. Jury
History of Magna Carta 1215
The Magna Carta is considered as one of the important legal documents in the history of
the British. It is considered as the most important constitutional document of all time. The
Magna Carta which was known as Magna Carta Libertium is said to be originally drafted in
Latin.
There was a rebellion by baron in the year 1215 due to number of incidents such as the
unpopularity with the subjects due to increase in taxes and due to his failed attempts to regain the
empire that he lost in Northern France.
Though this type of rebel was not uncommon but this time the baron did not have a
successor who can claim the throne. As Prince Arthur was missing so the only alternative in that
situation was Prince Louis from France who had a weak link as a husband to John's niece made
him unpopular for the throne.
So in this regard Baron was not happy with the rule that John who according to them was
not adhering to the Charter of liberties. The Charter was formulated by John's ancestors Henry I
during his rule in the year 1100 which bonded the king with laws in regard to the treatment of the
church official and noble men1.
1 Law, Tricia Harris. "Trial by jury: has the lamp lost its glow?." Diffusion-The UCLan Journal
of Undergraduate Research 3.2 (2015).

2LAW
Baron forcefully entered the Court of law with the help of Prince Louis and King Alexander II
after six months of failed negotiations. They entered the court on June 10, 1215. The king was
forced to rely in order to formulate a document which mentions new laws which got enacted
from the date 15th July was known as the first version of Magna Carta2.
Role of the Jury
The Jury are considered as the esteem member of the court who are responsible for
deciding after analysing all the facts that whether a person is guilty or not of the offence that the
person is charged with. The jury goes through the evidence to analyse the case and come to a
conclusion.
Jurors are chosen on random based on the electoral list of the local area. Any person who
over the age of eighteen and is under the age of seventy is eligible to become a jury. If a person
is living in UK for the past five years, in that case the person is eligible for jury selection3.
Certain people are disqualified are as follows:
 People having mental disorders
 People on bail for a criminal offence
 People who have received a sentence of life imprisonment
 People who have finished (within the last 10 years) a prison sentence or Community
Order
2 Lerner, Renee Lettow. "The Troublesome Inheritance of Americans in Magna Carta and Trial
by Jury." Magna Carta and its Modern Legacy 77-98 (Robert Hazell and James Melton eds.,
Cambridge University Press 2015) (2016).
3 Cockburn, James Swanston, and Thomas A. Green, eds. Twelve good men and true: the
criminal trial jury in England, 1200-1800. Princeton University Press, 2014.

3LAW
 Also, the Judge can determine that an individual who is ‘not capable of acting as a juror’
can be discharged (for example – they can’t speak English).
A jury has twelve members. They are chosen in random basis more than twelve people will
be brought to court then their names will be written by the court official and their names will be
chosen on random basis. If a juror knows anyone who is involved in the case, in that case the
juror has to mention that the case in the juror cannot be a member of that case. As the selection
process ends then each and every jury members will be sworn on their holy book.
Relationship between Jury and Judge
In case of the Crown Court in England and Wales where the cases that are being dealt are
very serious in nature, so in this regard the judges manage the trial and maintain the law, whereas
the jury evaluates the evidence and decides whether a person is guilty or innocent4.
Importance of Jury System
The members of the jury before would act as a witness to provide information regarding
local affairs but later on it evolved where they are empowered with greater roles. Now-a-days the
jury evaluates the evidences that are being produced in the court and on basis of their evaluation
come to a conclusion. Their roles have become very important as they play a major role in
functioning of the legal system.
4 Hans, Valerie P., et al. "The Death Penalty: Should the Judge or the Jury Decide Who
Dies?." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12.1 (2015): 70-99.

4LAW
2. Definition of Juror Misconduct
In a case law in the year 2001 the case of Jack, Jury misconduct- Juror misconduct is
when the law of the court is violated by a member of the jury while a court case is in progression
or after it has reached a verdict.
In another case of United Kingdom in the same year, 2001 the case of Jackson v the state
of Alabama one of the jury was release after posting something about the case of his Face book
page. Punishment for jury misconduct is an alternate is seated. If there is no alternate then a
mistrial is declared.
3. What leads to or the cause of Juror Misconduct
Hung Jury
A hung jury or deadlocked jury is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after
extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority5. One
famous case that would be a great example of a hung jury would be that if the case of Jodi Arias
in 2013.
Case description : Jodi Ariaswas convicted of murdering he lover in 2008 although the
prosecutor were seeking the death penalty it took to jury after the first was consider deadlock to
take the death penalty off the table and only sentencing her to life in prison with the possibly of
release after 25 years.
Sentencing
5Allen, Ronald Jay, et al. Criminal procedure: investigation and right to counsel. Wolters Kluwer
Law & Business, 2016.

5LAW
This is the post-conviction stage of the criminal justice process, in which the defendant is
brought before the court for the imposition of a penalty6. If a defendant is convicted in a criminal
prosecution, the event that follows the verdict is called sentencing. A sentence is the penalty
ordered by the court. Generally, the primary goals of sentencing are punishment, deterrence,
incapacitation, and rehabilitation. In some states, juries may be entitled to pronounce sentence,
but in most states, and in federal court, sentencing is performed by a judge.
Case Description: In one of the case of Ted Bundy which is one of the famous Sentencing cases
that can think of which was Ted Bundy vs the state of Alabama one of the jury was release after
posting something about the case of his Facebook page. Punishment for jury misconduct is an
alternate is seated. If there is no alternate then a mistrial is declared7.
Jury tampering
Jury tampering is a crime that occurs when people improperly influence jurors. Jurors can
also be improperly influenced and sometimes by their own doing and without anyone
committing a crime. However it occurs, improper influence on jurors can effectively undo a
criminal case and result in a new trial for the defendant.
Jury tampering trial case
During a trial, a person may not communicate with a juror about anything related to the
substance of the case. No matter how they do it, people who try to influence jurors are guilty of
jury tampering. A classic example of tampering is bribing or threatening a juror to decide a case
6Bedi, Monu. "Unraveling Unlawful Command Influence." Wash. UL Rev. 93 (2015): 1401.
7Browning, John G. "Voir Dire Becomes Voir Google: Ethical Concerns of 21st Century Jury Selection." The
Brief 45.2 (2016): 40.

6LAW
a certain way. More subtle examples are leaving jurors anonymous notes, slipping them
photographs, and telling them information that’s been excluded at trial.
Courts do not want outside information or opinion about a case to influence jurors; the
cases are supposed to be decided on the facts as presented at trial, not on potentially unreliable,
uninformed, and unchallenged information coming from elsewhere.
During a trial, jurors are instructed not to discuss the case with anyone outside of the
courtroom. To break this rule is to commit juror misconduct, which might get the juror dismissed
from the jury, but generally isn’t a crime. Juror misconduct is when the law of the court is
violated by a member of the jury while a court case is in progression or after it has reached a
verdict8.
Description of the Case-To give an example that in the year,2001 the case of Jackson v the state
of Alabama one of the jury was release after posting something about the case of his Face book
page. Punishment for jury misconduct is an alternate is seated. If there is no alternate then a
mistrial is declared9.
4. How does juror misconduct affect public confidence
Introduction on juries have the tremendous power on the lives of the people. Granting
them the power so that they can directly express their faith of the institution is the main vision of
the democratic governance. The confidence on jury verdicts can be fair, unbiased and accurate.
8Hoffmeister, Thaddeus. "Preventing Juror Misconduct in a Digital World." Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 90 (2015): 981.
9Coen, Mark, and Jonathan Doak. "Embedding explained jury verdicts in the English criminal
trial." Legal Studies (2017).

7LAW
In the recent years there have been many concerns that were raised and the jury system and the
vitality of the system10. One of the primary concerns was that the jury has become very
inefficient and it will serve as a drain on limited judicial resources. Concerns were raised about
the quality and the integrity of the outcomes that is reached by the juries.
Many critics believe that jurors are frequently biased, incompetent, and apathetic,
and as such, render verdicts that are unprincipled and often unjust. Jurors frequently
misunderstand instructions from the judge on legal issues, fail to recall critical evidence,
and suffer from boredom and apathy during trials11. Particularly in complex trials, jurors
have trouble comprehending the evidence and that as a consequence juror reach verdicts that
are arbitrary. Finally, there is a concern over the widespread negative perception that the
public has of the jury system
It seems that the public often no longer trusts juries to render fair and principled
verdicts. As a result, the legitimacy of the jury system has been questioned by the
media, members of the legal profession, and the public itself. Improving Jury Trials These
concerns have led to proposals intended to improve the jury system. Some of those
proposals focus on the way in which jurors are informed about the facts of the case so
they are deciding, about the law12.
10Cover, Aliza Plener. "Hybrid Jury Strikes." Harv. CR-CLL Rev. 52 (2017): 357.
11Garett, Brandon L., and Gregory Mitchell. "Forensics and Fallibility: Comparing the Views of
Lawyers and Jurors." W. Va. L. Rev. 119 (2016): 621.

8LAW
5. Reforms
This report examines the three such proposals. The first proposal is that the jurors are
allowed to question witness during the trial and allows the jurors to ask questions radically and
this departs from the traditional practice and this dictates that the jury sits passively and view the
evidence as lawyers present it.
Reformers both in and out of the courtroom feel that a more active role for jurors could
improve their ability to decide cases efficiently and accurately13. The second proposal
would allow jurors to discuss the evidence as it is presented, rather than requiring them to
refrain from discussion until they begin formal deliberations at the end of the trial.
The traditional practice is to instruct jurors not to discuss the evidence. The third
proposal focuses on jury instructions. Jurors frequently report that they simply do not
understand the law they are expected to apply. Jury instructions, the vehicle by which the
jury is informed of the law, traditionally are given only after the evidence is presented,
and are frequently phrased in language intended to satisfy appellate courts that might
review the verdict, rather than the needs of jurors14.
12Grunewald, Ralph, and Marvin Zalman. "Reinventing the Trial: The Innocence Revolution and
Proposals to Modify the American Criminal Trial." (2016).
13Horan, Jacqueline, and Mark Israel. "Beyond the legal barriers: Institutional gate keeping and
real jury research." Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 49.3 (2016): 422-436.
14Kreag, Jason. "The Jury's Brady Right." (2017).

9LAW
Criminal Justice and Court act
In order to simplify the instruction the jurors about the governing legal principles at the
beginning of the trial , might give the jurors a framework in which to fit the evidence they
are hearing and help them decide the case more quickly and more accurately15. Jurors
Submitting Questions to Witnesses During Trial Supporters of jury reform feel that the
traditional role of jurors as "passive fact finders”. It is detrimental to juror comprehension
and it thought that the lack of the juror involvement at trial encourages apathy and this leads to
poor decision making16.
There is evidence that allowing jurors to take a more active role during trial will
improve juror comprehension and will ultimately result in more accurate and principled
verdicts. One way in which jurors can be encouraged to take a less passive approach to
evaluating the evidence presented during a trial would be by allowing jurors to ask
witnesses questions when the testimony is unclear or unhelpful.
Presenting evidence at trial is considered to be the exclusive domain of lawyers,
lawyer often fail to present evidence in a complete and coherent fashion. Jurors may need
to ask questions to fill communication gaps in their understanding of a witness's
15Horan, Jacqueline, and Shelley Maine. "Criminal Jury Trials in 2030: A Law
Odyssey." Journal of Law and SoPowers, Christopher A. "Textual Misconduct: What Juror
Texting Means for Courts." Syracuse L. Rev. 67 (2017): 303. ciety 41.4 (2014): 551-575.
16Law Commission. "Contempt of court (1): juror misconduct and internet publications." (2013).

10LAW
testimony. There is evidence that allowing jurors to question witnesses would improve
juror comprehension and attentiveness during trial, resulting in more accurate, fair, and
principled verdicts. Thus many scholars and members of the judiciary believe that jurors
should be allowed to submit written questions to witnesses during trials.
6. Things that need to be done to further reduce/ minimize juror misconduct
7. Role of judges when he suspects misconduct
The traditional rule
Centuries ago, juries were viewed as inquisitive bodies and jurors were allowed to
question witnesses both outside and inside the courtroom17. As the modern legal
profession developed, the adversarial system of litigation dominated, and jurors gradually
took on a less active role in trials.
Jurors became "passive fact finders" instead of independent investigators of the
facts. Rules of evidence were developed to limit the information the jury received, and,
eventually, jurors were not allowed to question witnesses at all. In a few states, jurors
are expressly prohibited from asking questions by judicial decision18.
The cases of the jury
17Levenson, Laurie L. "The Cure for the Cynical Prosecutors’ Syndrome: Rethinking a
Prosecutor’s Role in Post-Conviction Cases." Browser Download This Paper (2015).
18Ouziel, Lauren M. "Legitimacy and Federal Criminal Enforcement Power." Yale LJ 123
(2013): 2236.

11LAW
In the case of: The Nebraska Supreme Court, in State verses Zima,
It disallowed the juror questioning on the ground that such a practice departs from
the traditional adversarial nature of judicial proceedings and may violate the party's due
process right to an impartial jury19.
Georgia's Supreme Court
It has disallowed juror questioning of witnesses in State vs. Williamson, where it
reasoned that jurors may be personally offended if attorneys object to their questions, and
that this may be a basis for prejudice.
Finally, Morrison vs. the State of the Court concluded that by allowing the juror to submit the
question to witness results in the reversible
Accidental Influence
Improper juror influence can occur without jury tampering or even jury misconduct.
Neither tampering nor misconduct has occurred if the juror follows the judge’s instructions and
no one tries to assert sway over the juror. But improper influence can nevertheless happen. An
example is a juror accidentally overhearing a conversation about evidence the judge ruled
inadmissible in the trial20.
19Levine, Kate. "Who Should't Prosecute the Police." Iowa L. Rev.101 (2015): 1447.
20Plener Cover, Aliza. "Hybrid Jury Strikes." Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law
Review 52.2 (2017).