Juries in the United States
A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution.[1] It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.
Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments).
The American system utilizes three types of juries: Investigative
The most outstanding feature of the U.S. system is that convictions (but not necessarily acquittals) in serious criminal cases must be unanimous, which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed to be a constitutional guarantee in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020).
History
The
The
Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right trial by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.[3]
Women in United States juries
The representation of women in United States juries has increased during the last hundred years, due to legislation and court rulings. Up until the late twentieth century, women were routinely excluded or allowed to opt out from jury service. The push for women's jury rights generated debate similar to the women's suffrage movement, permeating the media with arguments for and against. Federal and state court case rulings increased women's participation on juries. Some states allowed women to serve on juries much earlier than others. States also differed on whether women's suffrage implied women's jury service.
Federal jury
A federal jury, in the United States, is impaneled to try federal
Federal jury trial rights
Criminal juries
Grand jury
A grand jury decides whether or not there is enough evidence ("probable cause") that a person has committed a crime in order to put him or her on trial. If a grand jury decides there is enough evidence, the person is indicted. A grand jury has 16-23 members, and its proceedings are not open to the public. Unlike a petit jury, defendants and their attorneys do not have the right to appear before the grand jury.[8]
Petit jury
A petit jury, also known as a trial jury, is the standard type of jury used in criminal cases in the United States. Petit juries are responsible for deciding whether or not a defendant is guilty of violating the law in a specific case. They consist of 12 people, and their deliberations are private. Their decision is known as a verdict and decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty.[8]
Scope of constitutional right
Currently in the United States every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises from the Sixth Amendment and Article Three of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court incorporated this right against the states in Duncan v. Louisiana in 1968. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have eliminated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required,[9] meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases.
Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.
In the case of traffic offenses punishable by fine only (including parking tickets), and misdemeanor charges providing for imprisonment of six months or less, the availability of trial by jury varies from state to state, usually providing only for
Many juvenile court systems do not recognize a right to a jury trial, on the grounds that juvenile proceedings are civil rather than criminal, and that jury trials would cause the process to become adversarial.[14]
Sentencing enhancements
In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey,[15] and Blakely v. Washington,[16] the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines. This invalidated the procedure in many states and the federal courts that allowed sentencing enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on the judge's findings alone.
Unanimity
A jury must be unanimous for either a guilty or not guilty decision. In the event of a hung jury, charges against the defendant are not dropped and can be reinstated if the government so chooses.[17] In April 2020, in Ramos v. Louisiana the Supreme Court incorporated the unanimity requirement against the states, overturning Apodaca v. Oregon. Previously, Oregon had allowed non-unanimous decisions, and Louisiana had only recently abolished them for crimes committed after 2018.[18][19][20]
Waiver
The vast majority of U.S. criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by plea bargain. Both prosecutors and defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by negotiation resulting in a plea bargain. If the defendant waives a jury trial, a bench trial is held. Research indicates there is not a consistent difference between penalties handed down in jury trials and those handed down in bench trials.[21]
In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial.
Civil juries
Seventh Amendment
The right to trial by jury in a civil case is addressed by the 7th Amendment, which provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."[25] Although the civil jury (unlike the criminal jury) has fallen into disuse in much of the rest of the world, including England, it remains in high esteem in the United States. In Joseph Story's 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, he wrote, "[I]t is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty." Nearly every state constitution contains a similar guarantee.[26]
The 7th Amendment does not create any right to a jury trial; rather, it "preserves" the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law.[27] In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England at the time. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity. Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not.
The decision in Rachal v. Hill,[28] indicated that 7th Amendment right to jury trial may severely limit developments in the principles of res judicata.[28] Some critics believe that the United States has more trial by jury than is necessary or desirable.[29]
The right to a jury trial is determined based upon the a demand in the complaint brought by a Plaintiff, without regard to the defenses or counterclaims asserted by a defendant.
The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part.[30]
It has been suggested that in complex litigation, the jury's inability to comprehend the issues may cause the 7th Amendment right to conflict with due process rights and authorize the judge to strike the jury.[31]
The right to trial by jury in bankruptcy cases has been described as unclear.[32]
In Colgrove v. Battin,[33] the Supreme Court held that a civil jury of six members did not violate the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in a civil case.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Following the English tradition, U.S. juries have usually been composed of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict has usually been required to be unanimous. However, in many jurisdictions, the number of jurors is often reduced to a lesser number (such as five or six) by legislative enactment, or by agreement of both sides. Some jurisdictions also permit a verdict to be returned despite the dissent of one, two, or three jurors.[
Waiver
Jury selection
Jurors in some states are
Jury-imposed sentences
Jury sentencing is the practice of having juries decide what penalties to give those who have been convicted of criminal offenses. The practice of jury sentencing began in Virginia in the 18th century and spread westward to other states that were influenced by Virginia-trained lawyers.[40] As of 2018, Arkansas,[41] Kentucky,[42] Missouri,[43] Oklahoma,[44] Texas,[45] and Virginia[46] have sentencing by jury. Alabama, Georgia,[47] Indiana, Illinois,[48] Mississippi, Montana,[49] Tennessee,[50] and West Virginia had jury sentencing in times past, but then abandoned it.[40]
Rise of jury sentencing
The impetus for introducing jury sentencing was that in the late 18th century, punishment options expanded beyond
Virginia was the first state to adopt jury sentencing. The state's first constitution was enacted in 1776, and shortly thereafter, in 1779, Thomas Jefferson proposed to the Virginia General Assembly a revised criminal code that would have eliminated pardons and benefit of clergy, abolished capital punishment for most offenses, and allowed juries to decide punishments when the penalty was discretionary. This bill failed, however, both in 1779 and 1786, after James Madison had reintroduced it while Jefferson was in France.[52]
Sentencing by jury was, however, successfully enacted in Virginia's 1796 penal code, which like the 1779 bill replaced capital punishment with terms of imprisonment for most felony offenses. Kentucky adopted a penal reform bill introduced by John Breckenridge that implemented sentencing by jury in 1798. While in Virginia, magistrates continued to have misdemeanor sentencing power (possibly because of the political influence of magistrates who served in the General Assembly), in Kentucky, this power was given to juries. Kentucky juries tried and sentenced slaves and free blacks, and even decided cases involving prison discipline, imposing punishments such as flagellation or solitary confinement for infractions.[53] Georgia and Tennessee adopted sentencing by jury in 1816 and 1829, respectively.[52]
In contrast, northern states such as Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York allowed judges to determine penalties, with Pennsylvania also allowing judges to pardon prisoners who, in their view, had evidenced sincere reformation. One hypothesis is that Virginia opted for jury sentencing because Federalists like George Keith Taylor distrusted the Republican district court judges; while in Pennsylvania, the Constitutionalists sought (over the objections of Republicans) to put sentencing power in the hands of the judges because the bench was populated by Constitutionalists. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida, which did not establish penitentiaries until after the American Civil War, also left sentencing to judges' discretion.[52]
The adoption of jury sentencing happened at the same time that the movement for an elective judiciary gathered speed, with at least four states, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, and North Dakota switching to judicial elections around the same time that they adopted jury sentencing. Both reforms may have been due to a mistrust of unelected judges.[51]
During the ten years of the Republic of Texas, judges determined sentences. The change to jury determination of the penalty was brought about by one of the first laws passed by the first legislature of the State of Texas in 1846, which empowered the jury to sentence the defendant in all criminal cases except capital cases and cases for which punishment was fixed by law.[54]
Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia adopted jury sentencing later in the 19th century.[52]
Decline of jury sentencing
The 1895 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sparf v. United States reflected growing concern that letting juries decide whether or how the law should be applied in particular cases could be detrimental to the rule of law. By 1910, the role of juries in determining penalties was being eroded by the professionalization of sentencing, as many states passed laws that created parole and probation systems.[51]
These systems were based on a
The process of preparing a presentence report, which takes weeks, only begins after the defendant is convicted, since if he/she were to be acquitted, the effort that went into preparing the report would be wasted. It would, therefore, not be possible for juries to sentence the defendant at the time of conviction, if the jury needed to rely on a presentence report in making its sentencing decision; rather, the jury would need to be broken up and reassembled later, which could be unworkable if the delay between verdict and sentencing is substantial.[56]
Furthermore, jury control procedures typically provide that during the trial, information about the defendant's background that is not relevant to the issue of guilt is not to be presented in the presence of the jury, lest it prejudice him. The assumptions that presentence reports would be more informative than presentence hearings, and that training and experience were required to intelligently consider the data and assess sanctions, militated in favor of having a judge rather than a jury do the sentencing.
Georgia and Tennessee both had periods (from 1937 to 1939 and from 1913 to 1923, respectively) in which they briefly abandoned jury sentencing while experimenting with
By the 1970s and 1980s, determinate sentencing, a new intellectual current that repudiated the rehabilitative model with its focus on using mathematical models and grids to determine sentences, had made inroads, making jury sentencing seem like more of an anachronism.[51] Georgia permanently abandoned jury sentencing in 1974 and Tennessee did the same in 1982.[52] By the 1980s, Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, and North Dakota had also abandoned jury sentencing, and Mississippi was using jury sentencing only in rape and statutory rape cases. Oklahoma abolished jury sentencing but reinstated it in 1999.[58]
Possible revival of jury sentencing
According to some commentators, the time[when?] is ripe for a revival of jury sentencing, because flaws in the determinate sentencing systems are becoming increasingly apparent. Lawmakers drafting legislation such as the Sentencing Reform Act have had difficulty mustering the political will to make clear choices among opposing moral and ideological viewpoints, instead delegating these decisions to agencies that lack the representativeness and democratic origin of legislatures. Prosecutors have routinely circumvented the sentencing guidelines through their charging and plea bargaining decisions, creating a new set of disparities, despite the intent of the guidelines to curtail disparities.[59] Determinate sentencing has also failed to reduce racial disparity in sentencing.[60]
Also, some juries have been acquitting guilty defendants to save them from what they regard as overly harsh
Jury sentencing has been seen as a way to in many cases render moot the questions raised by Apprendi and related cases such as Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker[61] about the differences between elements of an offense and sentencing factors by letting the jury decide all the facts.[62] Cases such as Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida (banning mandatory life imprisonment without parole, and life imprisonment without parole in non-homicide cases, respectively, for juveniles, as contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment) also raise a question of whether the Supreme Court logically should allow only a jury, rather than a judge, to determine a juvenile should receive such a sentence, given the parallels between adult capital punishment case law and juvenile life imprisonment with parole case law.[63]
Plea bargains, judicial override, and juror access to information
In Virginia, under the 1796 act, capital punishment remained mandatory for
In Missouri, informing juries of sentences of defendants in similar cases or the sentences of co-participants in the crime on trial is strictly prohibited under the rules of evidence." Similarly, the Kentucky
Under Virginia's current system, jurors are controversially not allowed access to the Commonwealth's sentencing guidelines or to information about whether sentences will run consecutively or concurrently,[65] and until 2000 were also not informed that parole had been abolished in Virginia.[66][67] A judge must justify any departure from the jury's recommendation in writing to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. Less than one-quarter of jury-recommended sentences are modified by judges.[68] Due to concerns about juries' imposing higher sentences than what the sentencing guidelines would suggest, many defendants opt either for bench trials or plea bargains.[69]
States with jury sentencing have often allowed judges to intervene in the sentencing process, e.g. by reducing the sentence imposed by the jury, imposing hard labor or solitary confinement in addition to the jury's assessment of fines, or determining the place of confinement imposed by the jury.[59] In Alabama, judges were allowed to override juries' recommendations of life imprisonment and impose capital punishment instead, until a 2017 law took that power away.[70] All jury sentencing states except Texas allow the judge to fix the punishment in case the jury fails to agree on a sentence,[59] making it impossible for there to be a mistrial due to a hung jury at sentencing.[71]
In 2020, the Virginia Senate approved SB 810, giving juries applicable discretionary sentencing guidelines worksheets, and SB 811, providing that the court ascertain the punishment unless the defendant requests jury sentencing. Proponent Joe Morrissey said, "Juries are unpredictable . . . You have much more stability with the judge doing the sentencing."
Arguments for and against jury sentencing
An argument based on the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution is that criminal and civil juries have similar societal functions, including checking the abuse of governmental power, injecting community values into legal decisions, and aiding public acceptance of legal determinations; and therefore the criminal system should have juries decide sentences much as the civil system has juries decide judgments.[72] A counter-argument is that studies show, at least in second-degree murder cases where juries are allowed to recommend mercy, that more punitive sentences increase perceptions of legitimacy, and that judges' declining to follow juries' recommendations does not decrease public confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy.[73]
Arguments that have been raised against sentencing by jury are that juries are not as accountable as judges; that putting them in charge of determining both guilt and the sentence concentrates too much power in one body; and that different juries may differ widely in the sentences they impose. Counterarguments are that the lack of accountability of jurors to a higher authority preserves their judicial independence, and that judges are also capable of differing from other judges in the sentences they impose. Judges may even deviate from their own usual sentencing practices if the case is high-profile or a judicial election is coming up. Also, disparities are not always a sign of arbitrariness; sometimes they may reflect geographical differences in public attitudes toward a given crime, or a jury's taking proper account of the individual circumstances of each offender.[74]
It is sometimes argued that an unreasonable juror may force the rest of the jury into an undesirable compromise to find the defendant guilty but impose an overly light sentence. A counter-argument is that whether this is bad or good is a matter of perception since "one juror's principled holdout is another juror's irrational nullification. One jury's 'compromise' is another jury's perfectly appropriate give-and-take deliberations."[75]
According to University of Chicago Law School lecturer Jenia Iontcheva, sentencing decisions are well-suited to being made through a process of deliberative democracy rather than by experts such as judges, since they involve deeply contested moral and political issues rather than scientific or technical issues. She argues that since sentencing requires individualized, case-by-case assessments, sentences should be decided through small-scale deliberation by juries, as opposed to having lawmakers codify general policies for mechanical application by judges.[74]
An advantage Iontcheva cites of having juries come together to deliberate on sentences is that the jurors may alter their preferences in the light of new perspectives. She argues that the hearing and consideration of diverse opinions will give the sentencing decisions greater legitimacy, and that engaging ordinary citizens in government through this process of deliberative democracy will give these citizens confidence about their ability to influence political decisions and thus increase their willingness to participate in politics even after the end of their jury service. Racial and other minorities may also benefit from having greater representation among jurors than among judges.[74]
In jurisdictions that do not have any statutory provisions formally allowing jury sentencing, judges have sometimes consulted with the jury on sentencing anyway. At the federal level, the practice of polling the jury and using their input in sentencing was upheld on appeal by the
Notable jury sentences
Civil rights leader James Bevel was sentenced to 15 years in prison pursuant to the recommendation of a Virginia jury that found him guilty of having sex with his teenage daughter in the 1990s when they lived in Leesburg. The sentencing range had been 5 to 20 years.[77]
After James Alex Fields Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder for the Charlottesville car attack, the jury recommended a sentence of life plus 419 years.[78]
Criticism
It has been proposed that the federal civil jury system be abolished in order to clean up the backlog of cases, keep
Proposals to abolish the jury system have been criticized on the grounds that only reform, not abolition, is necessary; and that there is no better alternative system.
Some legal journals have speculated that jury trials encourage harsh punishment in the United States.[84]
References
- ^ "The Constitution - Full Text | The National Constitution Center". constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
- ^ "Types of Juries". United States Courts. Retrieved February 2, 2021.
- ^ Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
- ^ "Rule 6. The Grand Jury". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
- ^ "Rule 23. Jury or Nonjury Trial". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
- ^ a b "Rule 48. Number of Jurors; Verdict; Polling". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved August 8, 2023.
- ^ "Rule 31. Jury Verdict". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
- ^ a b "Types of Juries". United States Courts. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
- ^ a b Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970)
- ^ Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)
- ^ Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147 (1969)
- ^ Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989)
- ^ Langbein, John H. (1992), On the Myth of Written Constitutions: The Disappearance of Criminal Jury Trial, vol. 15, Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y, p. 119
- ^ Larsen, Korine L. (1994), With Liberty and Juvenile Justice for All: Extending the Right to a Jury Trial to the Juvenile Courts, vol. 20, Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., p. 835
- ^ Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
- ^ Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
- ^ Rule 31, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
- ^ de Vogue, Ariana (April 20, 2020). "Supreme Court says unanimous jury verdicts required in state criminal trials for serious offenses". CNN. Retrieved April 20, 2020.
- ^ Lopez, German (November 6, 2018). "Louisiana votes to eliminate Jim Crow jury law with Amendment 2". Vox. Retrieved May 19, 2021.
- ^ "Louisiana Amendment 2, Unanimous Jury Verdict for Felony Trials Amendment (2018)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved August 8, 2023.
- JSTOR 4099426
- ^ Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965)
- ^ Rule 23. Jury or Nonjury Trial, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
- ^ Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930)
- ^ "The Constitution of the United States of America". Gpoaccess.gov. Archived from the original on September 19, 2008. Retrieved September 6, 2008.
- ^ Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Actions; James, Fleming Jr., vol. 72, Yale L.J., 1962–1963, p. 655
- ^ Redish, Martin H. (1975–1976), Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial: A Study in the Irrationality of Rational Decision Making, vol. 70, Nw. U. L. Rev., p. 486
- ^ a b Rachal v. Hill, 435 F.2d 59 (5th. Cir. 1970)
- ^ Shapiro, David L.; Coquillette, Daniel R. (1971–1972), Fetish of Jury Trial in Civil Cases: A Comment on Rachal v. Hill, The, vol. 85, Harv. L. Rev., p. 442
- ^ "CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Seventh Amendment". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved September 6, 2008.
- ^ Oakes, Jeffrey (1979–1980), Right to Strike the Jury Trial Demand in Complex Litigation, The, vol. 34, U. Miami L. Rev., p. 243
- ^ Cyr, Conrad K. (1989), The Right to Trial by Jury in Bankruptcy: Which Judge is to Preside, vol. 63, Am. Bankr. L.J., p. 53
- ^ Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973)
- ^ Beacon Theaters v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959)
- ^ Rule 48, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- ^ Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema; Edwards, Harry T., vol. 99, Harv. L. Rev., 1985–1986, p. 668
- ^ Sternlight, Jean R. (2000–2001), Mandatory Binding Arbitration and the Demise of the Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial, vol. 16, Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol., p. 669
- ^ Sternlight, Jean R. (2003–2004), Rise and Spread of Mandatory Arbitration as a Substitute for the Jury Trial, The, vol. 38, U.S.F. L. Rev., p. 17
- ^ Ware, Stephen (2003), Contractual Arbitration, Mandatory Arbitration, and State Constitutional Jury-Trial Rights, USFL Rev.
- ^ a b King, Nancy J. (2003). "The Origins of Felony Jury Sentencing in the United States". Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 78 (937).
- CiteSeerX 10.1.1.173.1272.)
If a defendant is charged with a felony and is found guilty of an offense by a jury, the jury shall fix punishment . . . .
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help - ^ "60 KY.REV.STAT.ANN. § 532.055". 2010. Archived from the original on January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
Upon return of a verdict of guilty . . . the court shall conduct a sentencing hearing before the jury, if such case was tried before a jury. In the hearing the jury will determine the punishment to be imposed within the range provided elsewhere by law.
- ^ "61 MO.REV.STAT. § 557.036(3)". 2013.
If the jury at the first stage of a trial finds the defendant guilty of the submitted offense . . . The jury shall assess and declare the punishment as authorized by statute.
- ^ 62 OKLA.STAT.ANN. tit. 22, § 926.1 (West 2010) ("In all cases of a verdict of conviction for any offense against any of the laws of the State of Oklahoma, the jury may, and shall upon the request of the defendant assess and declare the punishment in their verdict within the limitations fixed by law . . . .").
- ^ "63 TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. art. 37.07(b)". 2009.
[I]n other cases where the defendant so elects in writing before the commencement of the voir dire examination of the jury panel, the punishment shall be assessed by the same jury . . . . If a finding of guilty is returned, the defendant may, with the consent of the attorney for the state, change his election of one who assesses the punishment.
- ^ "VA.CODE ANN. § 19.2-295". 2011.
[T]he term of confinement in the state correctional facility or in jail and the amount of fine, if any, of a person convicted of a criminal offense,shall be ascertained by the jury, or by the court in cases tried without a jury.
- ^ GA. CODE ANN. § 27-2502 (1953)
- ^ ILL, ANN. STAT. ch. 38, § 754a (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1959)
- ^ MONT. REV. CODES ANN. § 94-7411 (1947)
- ^ TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 40-2704 to −2707 (1955)
- ^ JSTOR 3202435.
- ^ a b c d e King, Nancy J. (2003). "The Origins of Felony Jury Sentencing in the United States". Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 78 (937).
- ^ Lewis, O.F. (1922). The development of American prisons and prison customs, 1776–1845. Prison Association of New York.
Any convict commencing a quarrel with another should "suffer such punishment (within the prison) as should be awarded by an impartial jury, but not over four lashes, or 10 hours of solitary confinement.
- ^ Webster, Charles W. (1960). "Jury Sentencing – Grab-Bag Justice". Sw L.J. 14 (221).
- JSTOR 1600541.
- ^ Hoffman, Morris B. "The Case for Jury Sentencing". Duke Law Journal. 52 (951).
- JSTOR 1120351.
- JSTOR 3202435.
- ^ JSTOR 3202435.
- JSTOR 797450.
- ^ Bibas, Stephanos and Klein, Susan R. (2008). "The Sixth Amendment and Criminal Sentencing". Faculty Scholarship (921).
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Carrington, Melissa (Fall 2011). "Applying Apprendi to jury sentencing: why state felony jury sentencing threatens the right to a jury trial" (PDF). University of Illinois Law Review. 2011 (4): 1359–1385.
- ^ Russell, Sarah F. (2015). "Jury Sentencing and Juveniles: Eighth Amendment Limits and Sixth Amendment Rights". B.C.L. Rev. 56 (553).
- ^ King, Nancy J. (2003). "The Origins of Felony Jury Sentencing in the United States". Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 78 (937).
- ^ Kelly, Ashley and Dujardin, Peter (April 1, 2012). "Virginia judges rarely question juries' sentencing recommendations". Daily Press.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Durkin, Alana (January 1, 2016). "Virginia eyes new sentences after juries didn't get key fact". Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star.
- ^ Ress, David (January 21, 2019). "House Courts subcommittee kills parole bill". Daily Press. Archived from the original on April 19, 2019. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
- ^ Stone, Caleb R. (2014). "Sentencing Roulette: How Virginia's Criminal Sentencing System is Imposing an Unconstitutional Trial Penalty That Suppresses the Rights of Criminal Defendants to a Jury Trial". Wm.& Mary Bill RTS. J. 23 (559).
- ^ Green, Frank (October 18, 2009). "Number of juried trials slumps both in Va., nationwide". Daily Progress.
- ^ Remkus, Ashley (July 21, 2017). "Did judicial override end in Alabama? Some say judges can still overrule jury over death penalty". AL.com.
- ^ Hoffman, Morris B. "The Case for Jury Sentencing". Duke Law Journal. 52 (951).
- ^ Kirgis, Paul F. (2005). "The Right to a Jury Decision on Sentencing Facts after Booker: What the Seventh Amendment Can Teach the Sixth". Ga. L. Rev. 39 (897). Archived from the original on September 6, 2019. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
- .
- ^ JSTOR 3202435.
- ^ Hoffman, Morris B. "The Case for Jury Sentencing". Duke Law Journal. 52 (951).
- ^ Heisig, Eric (June 29, 2016). "Federal appeals court upholds judge's lowest possible sentence in child-porn case". Cleveland.com.
- ^ Barakat, Matthew (April 10, 2008). "Civil Rights Leader Convicted of Incest". Associated Press. Archived from the original on November 26, 2018. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
- ^ Romo, Vanessa (December 11, 2018). "Charlottesville Jury Recommends 419 Years Plus Life For Neo-Nazi Who Killed Protester". NPR.org. NPR.
- ^ Devitt, Edward J. (1974), Federal Civil Jury Trials Should Be Abolished, vol. 60, A.B.A. J., p. 570
- ^ Eisenberg, Theodore; Clermont, Kevin M. (1995–1996), Trial by Jury or Judge: Which is Speedier, vol. 79, Judicature, p. 176
- ^ Wigmore, John H. (1928–1929), Program for the Trial of Jury Trial, A, vol. 12, J. Am. Jud. Soc., p. 166
- ^ Strawn, David U.; Buchanan, Raymond W. (1975–1976), Jury Confusion: A Threat to Justice, vol. 59, Judicature, p. 478
- ^ Jury Trial of Crimes; Powell, Lewis F. Jr., vol. 23, Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1, 1966
- ^ Pizzi, William T. (2002), "Do Jury Trials Encourage Harsh Punishment in the United States", Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 21, St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev.: 51