An empty jury box in a US courtroom

A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty, not guilty, or (in Scotland) not proven. Juries are composed of jurors (also sometimes known as jurymen), who are by definition layman finders of fact, not professionals.

The old institution of grand juries still exist in some places, particularly the United States, to investigate whether enough evidence of a crime exists to bring someone to trial.

The jury arrangement has evolved out of the earliest juries, which were found in early medieval England. Members were supposed to inform themselves of crimes and then of the details of the crimes. Their function was therefore closer to that of a grand jury than that of a jury in a trial.

Etymology[link]

The word jury derives from (Norman) French, "juré (sworn)". Juries are most common in common law adversarial-system jurisdictions. In the modern system, juries act as triers of fact, while judges act as triers of law. A trial without a jury (in which both questions of fact and questions of law are decided by a judge) is known as a bench trial.

Types of jury[link]

The "petit jury" (or "trial jury") hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases.

In civil cases many trials require only eight. Juries are almost never used in civil cases outside the United States and Canada. Other states with a common law tradition sometimes use them in defamation cases, in cases involving a governmental eminent domain power, and in cases involving alleged wrongful conviction. Civil law countries generally do not use civil juries. Civil juries are available in theory in the United States and Canada in almost all cases where the only remedy sought is money damages, although in practice they are sought only in large dollar cases.

A grand jury, a type of jury now confined almost exclusively to federal courts and some state jurisdictions in the United States, determines whether there is enough evidence for a criminal trial to go forward. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger than and distinguishable from the petit jury used during a trial, with at least 12 jurors. A grand jury does not require a suspect be notified of the proceedings, and grand juries can be used for filing charges in the form of a sealed indictment against unaware suspects to be arrested later by a surprise police visit.

Composition[link]

Serving on a jury is normally compulsory for those individuals who are qualified for jury service. Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other. Juries are initially chosen randomly from the eligible population residing in the court's jurisdictional area (unless a change of venue has occurred). Jury selection varies widely; in the United States, some form of organized questioning of the prospective jurors (jury pool) occurs—voir dire—before the jury is selected impaneled.

A head juror is called the "foreman" or "presiding juror". The foreman is often chosen before the trial begins or upon the beginning of deliberations. The role of the foreman is to ask questions on behalf of the jury, facilitate jury discussions, and sometimes to read the verdict of the jury. Since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often one or more alternate jurors are nominated. Alternates hear the trial but do not take part in deciding the verdict unless a juror is unable to deliberate. In Connecticut, alternate jurors are dismissed before the panel of sworn jurors begin deliberation. Connecticut General Statutes 51-243(e) and 54-82h do not allow alternate jurors to be segregated from the regular sworn jurors. In civil cases in Connecticut, C.G.S. 51-243(e) declares that alternate jurors "shall be dismissed." This differs from the power given to the Court in criminal trials under C.G.S. 54-82h, permitting the Court to not dismiss the alternate jurors, and have the regular jury panel begin deliberations.

Historical roots[link]

The Jury an 1861 painting of a British jury

The modern jury evolved out of the ancient custom of many ancient Germanic tribes whereby a group of men of good character was used to investigate crimes and/or judge the accused. The same custom evolved into the vehmic court system in medieval Germany. In Anglo-Saxon England, juries investigated crimes. After the Norman Conquest, some parts of the country preserved juries as the means of investigating crimes. The use of ordinary members of the community to consider crimes was unusual in ancient cultures, but was nonetheless also found in ancient Greece.

The modern jury trial evolved out of this custom in the mid 12th century during the reign of Henry II.^[1] Juries, usually 6 or 12 men, were an "ancient institution" in some parts of England. ("Henry II" 286) Members consisted of representatives of the basic units of local government—hundreds (an administrative sub-division of the shire, embracing several vills) and villages. Called juries of presentment, these men testified under oath to crimes committed in their neighborhood and indicted. The Assize of Clarendon in 1166 caused these juries to be adopted systematically throughout the country. The jury in this period was "self-informing," meaning it heard very little evidence or testimony in court. Instead, jurors were recruited from the locality of the dispute and were expected to know the facts before coming to court. The source of juror knowledge could include first-hand knowledge, investigation, and less reliable sources such as rumor and hearsay.^[2]

Between 1166 and 1179 new procedures including a division of functions between the sheriff, the jury of local men, and the royal justices ushered in the era of the English Common Law. Sheriffs prepared cases for trial and found jurors with relevant knowledge and testimony. Jurors 'found' a verdict by witnessing as to fact, even assessing and apply information from their own and community memory — little was written at this time and what was: deeds, writs, were subject to fraud. Royal justices supervised trials, answered questions as to law and announced the court's decision which was subject to appeal. Sheriffs executed the decision. These procedures enabled Henry II to delegate authority without endowing his subordinates with too much power. ("Henry II" 293)

In 1215 the Roman Catholic Church removed its sanction from all forms of ordeal — procedures by which suspects were 'tested' as to guilt (e.g., the ordeal of hot metal was applied to a suspected thief by pouring molten metal into his hand, if the wound healed rapidly and well, it was believed God found the suspect innocent, if not then guilty). With the ordeals banned, establishing guilt would have been problematic, had England not had forty years of judicial experience. Justices were accustomed to asking jurors of presentment about points of fact in assessing indictments; it was a short step to ask jurors if the accused was guilty as charged. ("Henry II" 358)

An early reference to a jury type group in England is in a decree issued by Aethelred at Wantage (997), which enacted that in every Hundred "the twelve leading thegns together with the reeve shall go out and swear on the relics which are given into their hands, that they will not accuse any innocent man nor shield a guilty one."^[3] The resulting Wantage Code code formally recognized legal customs that were part of the Danelaw.^[4]

The testimonial concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case.^[5]

One of the earliest antecedents of modern jury systems are juries in ancient Greece, including the city-state of Athens, where records of jury courts date back to 500 BCE. These voted by secret ballot and were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review. In modern systems, law is "self-contained" and "distinct from other coercive forces, and perceived as separate from the political life of the community," but "all these barriers are absent in the context of classical Athens. In practice and in conception the law and its administration are in some important respects indistinguishable from the life of the community in general."^[6]

18th century England[link]

In 1730, the British Parliament passed the Bill for Better Regulation of Juries.^[7] The Act stipulated that the list of all those liable for jury service was to be posted in each parish and that jury panels would be selected by lot, also known as sortition, from these lists. Its aim was to prevent middle-class citizens from evading their responsibilities by financially putting into question the neutrality of the under-sheriff, the official entrusted with impanelling juries.

Prior to the Act, the main means of ensuring impartiality was by allowing legal challenges to the sheriff’s choices. The new provisions did not specifically aim at establishing impartiality, but had the effect of reinforcing the authority of the jury by guaranteeing impartiality at the point of selection.

The example of early 18th century England legal reform shows how civic lotteries can be used to organize the duties and responsibilities of the citizen body in relation to the state. It established the impartiality and neutrality of juries as well as reiterating the dual nature of the citizen-state relationship...

Trial jury size[link]

About 50 prospective jurors awaiting jury selection

The size of the jury is to provide a "cross-section" of the public. In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Florida state jury of six was sufficient, and that "the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of "trial by jury," and that respondent's refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for by Florida law did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth."^[8]

In Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that a jury of 12 members was not an essential feature of "trial by jury" in section 80 of the Australian Constitution.

In Scotland, a jury in a criminal trial consists of 15 jurors, which is thought to be the largest in the world. In 2009 a review by the Scottish Government regarding the possibility of reduction,^[9] led to the decision to retain 15 jurors, with the Secretary for Justice stating that after extensive consultation, he had decided that Scotland had got it "uniquely right".^[10]

For juries to fulfill their role to analyze the facts of the case, there are strict rules about their use of information during the trial. Juries are often instructed to avoid learning about the case from any source other than the trial (such as from media accounts) and to not attempt to conduct their own investigations (such as independently visiting a crime scene). Parties, lawyers, and witnesses are not allowed to speak with a member of the jury. Doing these things may constitute reversible error. In very rare, high-profile cases, juries may be sequestered for the deliberation phase or for the entire trial.

Conversely, jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in strict confidence during the trial and deliberations, and in some jurisdictions even after a verdict is rendered. In English law, the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trial or verdict, is considered to be contempt of court, a criminal offense. In the United States, this rule usually does not apply, and sometimes jurors have made remarks that called into question whether a verdict was properly arrived at. In Australia, academics are permitted to scrutinize the jury process only after obtaining a certificate or approval from the Attorney-General.

Because of the desire to prevent undue influence on a jury, jury tampering (like witness tampering) is a serious crime, whether attempted through bribery, threat of violence, or other means. Jurors themselves can also be held liable if they deliberately compromise their impartiality.

A study by the University of Glasgow showed that a jury of 12 people was ineffective because a few jurors ended up dominating the discussion, and that seven was a better number because more people feel comfortable speaking, and they have an easier time reaching a unanimous decision.^[11]

Role[link]

The role of the jury is seemingly accurate to a finder of fact, while the judge is seen as having the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. The jury will render a verdict on the defendant's guilt, or civil liability. Sometimes a jury will also make specific findings of fact in what is called a "special verdict." A verdict without specific findings of fact that includes only findings of guilt, civil liability and an overall amount of civil damages, if awarded, is called a "general verdict."

Juries are often justified because they leaven the law with community norms.^[12] Jury trial verdicts are not, however, legally binding precedents in other cases. For example, it would be possible for one jury to find that particular conduct is negligent, and another jury to find that it is not negligent, without either verdict being legally invalid, on precisely the same factual evidence. Occasionally, if jurors find the law to be invalid or unfair, they may acquit the defendant, regardless of the evidence that the defendant violated the law. This is commonly referred to as "jury nullification of law" or simply jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the judge makes rulings on both questions of law and of fact. In most continental European jurisdictions, the judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted. Actual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.

The collective knowledge and deliberate nature of juries are also given as reasons in their favor:

Detailed interviews with jurors after they rendered verdicts in trials involving complex expert testimony have demonstrated careful and critical analysis. The interviewed jurors clearly recognized that the experts were selected within an adversary process. They employed sensible techniques to evaluate the experts’ testimony, such as assessing the completeness and consistency of the testimony, comparing it with other evidence at the trial, and evaluating it against their own knowledge and life experience. Moreover, the research shows that in deliberations jurors combine their individual perspectives on the evidence and debate its relative merits before arriving at a verdict.^[13]

In the United States, juries are also entitled, when asked to do so by a judge in their jury instructions, to make factual findings on particular aggravating circumstances which will be used to elevate the defendant's sentence, if the defendant is convicted. This practice was required in all death penalty cases in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), where the Supreme Court ruled that allowing judges to make such findings unilaterally violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. A similar Sixth-Amendment argument in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) expanded the requirement to all cases, holding that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt".^[14]

Many U.S. jurisdictions permit the seating of an advisory jury in a civil case in which there is no right to trial by jury to provide non-binding advice to the trial judge,^[15] although this procedural tool is rarely used. For example, a judge might seat an advisory jury to guide the judge in awarding non-economic damages in a case where there is no right to a jury trial, such as a personal injury suit brought against a state government.

In Canada, juries are also allowed to make suggestions for sentencing periods and at the time of sentencing, the suggestions of the jury are presented before the judge by the Crown prosecutor(s) before the sentence is handed down. A small number of U.S. jurisdictions, including Texas, give juries the right to set sentences as well as to find guilt or innocence.

However, this is not the practice in most other legal systems based on the English tradition, in which judges retain sole responsibility for deciding sentences according to law. The exception is the award of damages in English law libel cases, although a judge is now obliged to make a recommendation to the jury as to the appropriate amount.

In legal systems based on English tradition, findings of fact by a jury and jury conclusions that could be supported by jury findings of fact when the specific factual basis for the verdict is not known, are entitled to great deference on appeal. In other legal systems, it is generally possible to reconsidered both findings of fact and findings of law made at the trial court level and evidence may be presented to appellate courts in what amounts to a trial de novo of appealled findings of fact made by the court of first instance in a case. The finality of trial court findings of fact in legal systems based on the English tradition has major impact on court procedure in these systems. This finality makes it imperative that lawyers be highly prepared for trial in the first instance in high stakes cases with jury trials based on the English tradition, because errors and misjudgments related to the presentation of evidence at trial to a jury cannot generally be corrected later on appeal. Surprises at trial are much more consequential in jury trials in systems based on the English tradition than they are in other legal systems as a result, so in these systems trial preparation to avoid any possibility of surprise is more important than it might be otherwise.

Jury nullification[link]

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."^[16]

In the 17th and 18th centuries there were a series of cases starting in 1670 with the trial of the Quaker William Penn which asserted the (de facto) right of a jury to pass a verdict contrary to the facts or law. A good example is the case of one Carnegie of Finhaven who in 1728 accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury to pass the verdict that the case had been "proven" and cause Carnegie of Finhaven to die for an accidental killing. Instead the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts and brought in the verdict of "not guilty". This led to the development of the not proven verdict in Scots law.

Today in the United States, juries are instructed by the judge to follow his or her instructions concerning what is the "law", in his or her opinion, and to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented in court. If it reaches a conclusion contrary to those instructions, but based on its own beliefs as to what the law is, whether it has been properly applied, or whether it should be the law, this is known as jury nullification. It finds its most common expression when verdicts are rendered based on passion, prejudice, sympathy or bias. It has been asserted that the jury has the power to "nullify" a law it believes is unjust, by, for example, refusing to find the defendant guilty, in spite of the evidence, if it believes that a guilty verdict would be unjust. Important past exercises of this de facto power include cases involving slavery (see Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), freedom of the press (see John Peter Zenger), and freedom of religion (see William Penn).

In United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th. Cir. 1969), Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal unanimously ruled: "If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision." The Fully Informed Jury Association is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to informing jurors of their rights and seeks laws to force judges to inform jurors that they can and should judge the law. In Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws.

Modern American jurisprudence is generally intolerant of the practice, and a juror can be removed from a case if the judge believes that the juror is aware of the power of nullification.^[17]

Jury equity[link]

In the United Kingdom, a similar power exists, often called "jury equity". This enables a jury to reach a decision in direct contradiction with the law if they feel the law is unjust. This can create a persuasive precedent for future cases, or render prosecutors reluctant to bring a charge – thus a jury has the power to influence the law.

Perhaps the best example of modern-day jury equity in England and Wales was the acquittal of Clive Ponting, on a charge of revealing secret information, under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 in 1985. Mr Ponting's defence was that the revelation was in the public interest. The trial judge directed the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is" – effectively a direction to the jury to convict. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Another example is the acquittal in 1989 of Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, who confessed in open court to charges of springing the Soviet spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs Prison and smuggling him to East Germany in 1966. Pottle successfully appealed to the jury to disregard the judge's instruction that they consider only whether the defendants were guilty in law, and assert a jury's ancient right to throw out a politically motivated prosecution, in this case compounded by its cynical untimeliness.^[18]

In Scotland (with a separate legal system from that of England and Wales) although technically the "not guilty" verdict was originally a form of jury nullification, over time the interpretation has changed so that now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal one when a jury is not persuaded of guilt and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt.^[19] It is absolutely central to Scottish and English law that there is a presumption of innocence. It is not a trivial distinction since any shift in the burden of proof is a significant change which undermines the safeguard for the citizen.^[20]

Advantages and Disadvantages of a jury system[link]

Advantages of a jury system[link]

• As there are many persons from different backgrounds, any individual prejudices are likely to cancel out.^{[original research?]}
• Juries represent the common public and therefore are more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society.
• Discussions among juries are likely to lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case.
• It is more difficult to corrupt 12 jurors though than one (or three) judge(s).

Disadvantages of a jury system[link]

• The jury members are with a few exceptions not knowledgeable about the law and are unfamiliar with court procedure, decisions might be based on emotions rather than rationale arguing.^{[original research?]}
• Complex cases tend to require special expertise to judge the case which a jury do not have.
• The jury members are more susceptible to the rhetoric impressions and mesmerised by the eloquence of a lawyer than a judge, they tend to be over-awed by the whole experience.
• Since the decision by jury is a group decision, individual members of the jury may not feel that responsible about their duties and therefore neglect it.
• Group pressure might be influential on the decision.
• Juries may be swayed by the current prejudices in the society, which are not supported by law.
• A jury system is very costly.

Non-trial juries[link]

A wine jury

Besides petit juries for jury trials and grand juries for issuing indictments, juries are sometimes used in non-legal or quasi-legal contexts. Blue ribbon juries attend to civic matters as an ad-hoc body in the executive branch of a government. Outside government, a jury or panel of judges may make determinations in competition, such as at a wine tasting, art exhibition, or talent contest. These types of contests are juried competitions.

Blue ribbon juries are juries selected from prominent, well-educated citizens, sometimes to investigate a particular problem such as civic corruption. Blue ribbon juries cannot be used in real trials, which require constitutional safeguards to produce a jury of one's peers. The blue-ribbon jury is intended to overcome the problems of ordinary juries in interpreting complex technical or commercial questions. In the United States blue-ribbon juries were provided for by statutes, the terms varying by jurisdiction.

Trial procedures[link]

Australia[link]

States[link]

Each State may determine the extent to which the use of a Jury is used. The use of a Jury is optional for civil trials in any Australian State.^{[citation needed]} The use of a Jury in criminal trials is generally by unanimous verdict of 12 lay members of the public. Some States provide exceptions such as majority (11-to-1 or 10-to-2) verdicts where a jury cannot otherwise reach a verdict. Sometimes a State law may allow an accused person to elect to use a Judge-only trial rather than the default Jury provision.

Commonwealth (Federal)[link]

The Constitution of Australia provides in section 80 that 'the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury'. The Commonwealth can determine which offences are 'on indictment': Cheng v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 248 (McHugh and Callinan JJ, Kirby J dissenting). It would be entirely consistent with the Constitution that a Homicide offence could be tried not 'on indictment,' or conversely that a simple Assault could be tried 'on indictment.' This interpretation has been criticised a 'mockery' of the section, rendering it useless: R v Federal Court of Bankruptcy; Ex parte Lowenstein (1939) 59 CLR 556 (Dixon and Evatt JJ dissenting).

Where a trial 'on indictment' has been prescribed, it is an essential element that it be found by a unanimous verdict of guilty by 12 lay members of the public. This requirement stems from the (historical) meaning of 'jury' at the time that the Constitution was written and is (in principle) thus an integral element of trial by jury:Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541 (per curiam). Unlike States, an accused person cannot elect a Judge-only trial.

Belgium[link]

The Belgian Constitution provides that all cases involving the most serious crimes be judged by juries. As a safeguard against libel cases, press crimes can also only be tried by jury. Racism is excluded from this safeguard.

Twelve jurors decide by majority whether the defendant is guilty or not. A tied vote results in 'not guilty'; a '7 guilty - 5 not guilty' vote is transferred to the 3 professional judges who can, by unanimity, reverse the majority to 'not guilty'. The sentence is delivered by a majority of the 12 jurors and the 3 professional judges.^[21] As a result of the Taxquet ruling the juries give nowadays the most important motives that lead them to their verdict. The procedural codification has been altered to meet the demands formulated by the European Court of Human Rights.

Brazil[link]

The Constitution of Brazil provides that only willful crimes against life, namely full or attempted murder, abortion, infanticide and suicide instigation, be judged by juries. Seven jurors vote in secret to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not, and decisions are taken by majority.

Manslaughter and other crimes in which the killing was committed without intent, however, are judged by a professional judge instead.

Canada[link]

In Canada, juries are used for some criminal trials but not others. For summary conviction offences^[22] or offences found under section 553 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the trial is before a judge alone. For most indictable offences, the accused person can elect to be tried by either a judge alone or a judge and jury.^[23] In the most serious offences, found in section 469 of the Criminal Code of Canada (such as murder or treason), a judge and a jury are always used, unless both the accused and the prosecutor agree that the trial should not be in front of a jury.^[24] The jury's verdict on the ultimate disposition of guilt or innocence must be unanimous,^[25] but can disagree on the evidentiary route that leads to that disposition.^[26][27]

Juries do not make a recommendation as to the length of sentence, except for parole ineligibility for second-degree murder (but the judge is not bound by the jury's recommendation, and the jury is not required to make a recommendation).^[25]

Jury selection is in accordance with specific criteria. Prospective jurors may only be asked certain questions, selected for direct pertinence to impartiality or other relevant matters. Any other questions must be approved by the judge.

A jury in a criminal trial is initially composed of 12 jurors. There are no substitute jurors. Instead, if a juror is discharged during the course of the trial, the trial will continue unless the number of jurors goes below 10.^[25]

The Canadian constitution guarantees that anyone tried for an offence that has a maximum sentence of five or more years has the right to be tried by a jury (except for an offence under military law).

The names of jurors are protected by a publication ban. There is a specific criminal offence for disclosing anything that takes place during jury deliberations.^[25]

Juries are infrequently used in civil trials in Canada. Because juries have no power to award damages, as they do in the United States, there is less incentive to call for a trial with a jury.

For further reading: Jury Trial in Canada

England and Wales[link]

In England and Wales jury trials are used for criminal cases, requiring 12 (between the ages of 18 and 70) jurors. The right to a jury trial has been enshrined in English law since Magna Carta in 1215, and is most common in the serious cases, although the defendant can insist on a jury trial for most criminal matters. Jury trials have been described as expensive and time-consuming in complex fraud cases by some members and appointees of the Labour Party.^[28] In contrast, the Bar Council, Liberty and other political parties have supported the idea that trial by jury is at the heart of the judicial system and placed the blame for a few complicated jury trials failing on inadequate preparation by the prosecution.^[29] On 18 June 2009 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting in the Court of Appeal, made English legal history by ruling that a criminal trial in the Crown Court could take place without a jury.^[30]

Jury trials are also available for some few areas of civil law (for example cases involving police conduct), which require 10 jurors not 12, but less than one percent of civil trials involve juries.^[31] At the new Manchester Civil Justice Centre, constructed in 2008, of the 48 courtrooms, fewer than 10 had jury facilities.

France[link]

In the Cour d'assises[link]

Nine (in first instance proceedings) or twelve (in appeal proceedings) jurors sit around three judges. The judges' opinion adds up to the one of the jury to definitely convict the defendant, with a majority of seven (in first instance) or nine (in appeal) needed in order to convict the defendant. During these procedures, judges and jurors have equal positions on questions of facts, while judges decide on questions of procedure. Judges and jurors have also equal positions on sentencing.

Germany[link]

Trial by jury was introduced in most German states after the revolutionary events of 1848; however, it remained controversial and early in the 20th century there were moves to abolish it.^[32] The Emminger Reform of January 4, 1924, during an Article 48 state of emergency, abolished the jury system and replaced it with a mixed system including bench trials and lay judges. In 1925 the Social Democrats called for the reinstitution of the jury, and a special meeting of the German Bar demanded revocation of the decrees, but "on the whole the abolition of the jury caused little commotion".^[33] Their verdicts were widely perceived as unjust and inconsistent.

Today, most misdemeanors are tried by a Strafrichter, meaning a single judge at an Amtsgericht; felonys and more severe misdemeanors are tried by a Schöffengericht, also located at the Amtsgericht, composed of 1 judge and 2 lay judges; some felonies are heard by Erweitertes Schöffengericht, or extended Schöffengericht, composed of 2 judges and 2 lay judges; severe felonies and other "special" crimes are tried by the große Strafkammer, composed of 3 judges and 2 lay judges at the Landgericht, with specially assigned courts for some crimes called Sonderstrafkammer; felonies resulting in the death of a human being are tried by the Schwurgericht, composed of 3 judges and 2 lay judges, located at the Landgericht; and serious crimes against the state are tried by the Strafsenat, composed of 5 judges' at an Oberlandesgericht.^[34] In some civil cases, such as commercial law or patent law, there are also lay judges, who have to meet certain criteria (e.g. being a merchant).

Hong Kong[link]

The Hong Kong Basic Law, Article 86, assures the practice of jury trials. Most serious criminal cases and some civil cases are tried by jury in Hong Kong. In addition, from time to time, the Coroner’s Court may summon a jury to decide the cause of death in an inquest. Criminal cases are normally tried by a 7-person jury and sometimes, at the discretion of the court, a 9-person jury. Nevertheless, the Jury Ordinance requires that a jury in any proceedings should be composed of at least 5 jurors.

Although Article 86 of the Basic Law states that ‘the principle of trial by jury previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained’, it does not guarantee that every case is to be tried by jury. In Chiang Lily v. Secretary for Justice (2010), the Court of Final Appeal agreed that ‘there is no right to trial by jury in Hong Kong.’

India[link]

Juries were formerly used in India up until the famous KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra (1959), which led to the abolition of jury trials, although minor issues in rural areas are still handled by the panchayat raj system of village assemblies.

In the Nanavati case, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was tried for the murder of his wife Sylvia's paramour, Prem Ahuja. The incident shocked the nation, got unprecedented media coverage, and inspired several books and movies. The case was the last jury trial held in India. The central question of the case was whether the gun went off accidentally or whether it was a premeditated murder.

In the former scenario, Nanavati would be charged under the Indian penal code, for culpable homicide, with a maximum punishment of 10 years. In the latter, he would be charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life imprisonment. Nanavati pleaded not guilty. His defence team argued it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.

The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati not guilty with an 8–1 verdict. The sessions judge considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the high court. The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points. One, the onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati. Two, was Sylvia's confession of the grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or both. Three, the judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third person. And four, the jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defence had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. Since the jury had also been influenced by media and public support for Nanavati and was also open to being misled, the Indian government abolished jury trials after the case.

Ireland[link]

History of juries in Ireland[link]

Juries were introduced into Ireland as part of the transplantation of common law.

Modern Irish juries[link]

In Ireland, a common law jurisdiction jury trials are available for criminal before the Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and defamation cases. Consisting of twelve persons, juries are selected from a jury panel which is picked at random by the county registrar from the electoral register. Juries only decide questions of fact. They have no role in criminal sentencing or awarding damages in libel cases. It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In civil cases, a verdict may be reached by a majority of nine of the twelve members. In a criminal case, a verdict need not be unanimous where there are not fewer than eleven jurors if ten of them agree on a verdict after considering the case for a "reasonable time".

For certain terrorist and organised crime offences the Director of Public Prosecutions may issue a certificate that the accused be tried by the Special Criminal Court. Instead of a jury the Special Criminal Court consists of three judges, one from the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court.

The constitutional provisions regulating the Trial of Offences are set out in article 37 of the Irish Constitution. DPP v McNally sets out that a jury has the right to reach a not guilty verdict even in direct contradiction of the evidence. The principal statute regulating the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the Juries Act 1976 as amended by the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, which scrapped the upper age limit of 70. Juries are not paid, nor do they receive travel expenses, however they do receive lunch for the days that they are serving.

In 2010, the Irish Law Reform Commission published a Consultation Paper on Jury Service, and proposed reforms are expected by 2011.

Italy[link]

In Italy, a Civil law jurisdiction, untrained judges are present only in the Corte d'Assise, where two career magistrates are supported by six so-called Lay Judges, who are raffled from the registrar of voters. Any Italian citizen, with no distinction of sex or religion, between 30 and 65 years of age, can be appointed as a lay judge; in order to be eligible as a lay judge for the Corte d'Assise, however, there is a minimum educational requirement, as the lay judge must have completed his/her education at the Scuola Media (junior high school) level, while said level is raised for the Corte d'Assise d'Appello (appeal level of the Corte d'Assise) to the Scuola Superiore (senior high school) degree. In the Corte d'Assise, decisions both fact and law matters are taken by the stipendiary judges and "Lay Judges" together at a special meeting behind closed doors, named Camera di Consiglio ("Counsel Chamber"), and the Court is subsequently required to publish written explanations of its decisions within 90 days from the verdict. Errors of law or inconsistencies in the explanation of a decision can and usually will lead to the annulment of the decision. A Court d'Assise and a Court d' Assise d'Appello decides on a majority of votes, and therefore predominantly on the votes of the lay judges, who are a majority of six to two, but in actual fact lay judges, who are not trained to write such explanation and must rely on one or the other stipendiary judge to do it, are effectively prevented from overruling both of them. The Corte d'Assise has jurisdiction to try crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 24 years in prison or life imprisonment, and other serious crimes; felonies that fall under its jurisdiction include terrorism, murder, manslaughter, severe attempts against State personalities, as well as some matters of law requiring ethical and professional evaluations (ex. assisted suicide), while it generally has no jurisdiction over cases whose evaluation requires knowledges of Law which the "Lay Judges" generally don't have. Penalties imposed by the court can include life sentences.

New Zealand[link]

Juries are used in trials for all indictable offences and, at the option of the defendant, summary offences that can be punished with more than 3 months in prison. In civil cases juries are usually only used in cases of defamation. Previously requiring unanimous support, New Zealand now permits majority results of 10-1 or 11-1.^[35]

Northern Ireland[link]

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, jury trials were suspended and trials took place before Diplock Courts. These were essentially trials before judges only. This was to combat the intimidation of juries.^{[citation needed]}

Norway[link]

The jury was introduced in 1887, and is solely used in criminal cases on the second tier of the three-tier Norwegian court system ("Lagmannsretten"). The jury consists of 10 people, and has to reach a majority verdict consisting of seven or more of the jurors.^[36] The jury never gives a reason for its verdict, rather it simply gives a "guilty" or "non-guilty" verdict.

In a sense, the concept of being judged by one's peers exists on both the first and second tier of the Norwegian court system: In Tingretten, one judge and two lay judges preside, and in Lagmannsretten three judges and four lay judges preside (if a jury is not used). The lay judges do not hold any legal qualification, and represent the peers of the person on trial, as members of the general public. As a guarantee against any abuse of power by the educated elite, the number of lay judges always exceeds the number of appointed judges. In the Supreme Court, only trained lawyers are seated.

Scotland[link]

Scottish trials are based on an adversarial approach. First the prosecution leads evidence from witnesses and after each witness the defence has an opportunity to cross examine. Following the Prosecution case, the defence may move a motion of no case to answer if the worst the prosecution has been able to lead in evidence would be insufficient to convict of any crime. If there remains a case to answer, the defence leads evidence from witnesses in an attempt to refute previous evidence led by the prosecution, with cross examination being permitted after each witness. Once both prosecution and defence have concluded leading evidence, the case goes to summing up where firstly the prosecution and then the defence get to sum up their case based on the evidence that has been heard. The jury is given guidance on points of law and then sent out to consider its verdict. Juries are composed of fifteen residents.^[37]

Spain[link]

Spain had no established tradition of using juries in trials, but the Constitution of 1978, legislates the right to a trial by jury, called "popular jury" as opposed to a "magistrates jury". The provision is arguably somewhat vague: "Section 125 - Citizens may engage in popular action and take part in the administration of justice through the institution of the jury, in the manner and with respect to those criminal trials as may be determined by law, as well as in customary and traditional courts."

Jury trials have been very slowly introduced in Spain and have often produced less than desirable results.^{[citation needed]} One of the first cases was that of Mikel Otegi who was tried in 1997 for the murder of two police officers. After a confused^{[clarification needed]} trial, five jury members of a total of nine voted to acquit and the judge ordered the accused set free. This verdict shocked the nation.^[38] Another alleged miscarriage of justice by jury trial was the Wanninkhof murder case.

Sweden[link]

Sweden has no tradition of using juries in most types of criminal or civil trial. The sole exception, since 1815, is in cases involving freedom of the press, prosecuted under Chapter 7 of the Freedom of the Press Act, part of Sweden's constitution ^[39]. The most frequently prosecuted offence under this act is defamation, although in total eighteen offences, including high treason and espionage, are covered. These cases are tried in district courts (first tier courts) by a jury of nine laymen.

The jury in press freedom cases rules only on the facts of the case and the question of guilt or innocence. The trial judge may overrule a jury's guilty verdict, but may not overrule an acquittal. A conviction requires a majority verdict of 6-3. Sentencing is the sole prerogative of judges.

Jury members must be Swedish citizens and resident in the county in which the case is being heard. They must be of sound judgement and known for their independence and integrity. Combined, they should represent a range of social groups and opinions, as well as all parts of the county. It is the county council that have the responsibility to appoints juries for a tenure of four years under which they may serve in multiple cases. The appointed jurymen are divided into two groups, in most counties the first with sixteen members and the second with eight. From this pool of available jurymen the court hears and excludes those with conflicts of interest in the case, after which the defendants and plaintiffs have the right to exclude a number of members, varying by county and group. The final jury is then randomly selected by drawing of lots.^[40][41]

Juries are not used in other criminal and civil cases. For most other cases in the first and second tier courts lay judges sit alongside professional judges. Lay judges participate in deciding both the facts of the case and sentencing. Lay judges are appointed by local authorities, or in practice by the political parties represented on the authorities^[42]. Lay judges are therefore usually selected from among political activists.

United States[link]

In criminal law in United States, in federal courts and in a minority of state court systems, a grand jury is convened to hear only testimony and evidence to determine whether there is a case to be answered and hence whether the accused should be indicted and sent for trial. In each court district where a grand jury is required, a group of 16–23 citizens holds an inquiry on criminal complaints brought by the prosecutor and decides if a trial is warranted (based on the standard that probable cause that a crime was committed exists), in which case an indictment is issued. In general, the size of juries tends to be larger if the crime alleged is more serious. If a grand jury rejects a proposed indictment it is known as a "no bill"; if they accept to endorse a proposed indictment it is known as a "true bill". Grand jury proceedings are ex parte: only the prosecutor may present evidence to the grand jury and defendants are not allowed to present mitigating evidence or even to know the testimony that was presented to the grand jury, and hearsay evidence is permitted. Grand juries vote to indict in the overwhelming majority of cases, and prosecutors are not prohibited from presenting the same case to a new grand jury if a "no bill" was returned by a previous grand jury. A typical grand jury considers a new criminal case every fifteen minutes. In some jurisdictions, in addition to indicting people for crimes, a grand jury may also issue reports on matters that they investigate apart from the criminal indictments that it produces, particularly when the grand jury investigation involves a public scandal. Historically, grand juries were sometimes used in American law to serve a purpose similar to an investigatory commission.

Both Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the Sixth Amendment require that criminal cases be tried by a jury,^[43] and the Fourteenth Amendment applies this mandate to the states. Although the initial draft did not require a jury for civil cases, this led to an uproar which was followed by the Seventh Amendment, which requires a civil jury in cases where the value in dispute is greater than twenty dollars.^[44] However, the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial does not apply in state courts, where the right to a jury is strictly a matter of state law.^[45] But, in practice, all states but Louisiana, preserve the right to a jury trial in almost all civil cases where the sole remedy sought is money damages to the same extent as jury trials are permitted by the 7th Amendment, although sometimes jury trials are not allowed in small claims cases. The civil jury in the United States is a defining element of the process by which personal injury trials are handled in the United States.

In practice most criminal actions in the U.S. are resolved by plea bargain,^[46] and only about 2% of civil cases go to trial, with only about half of those trials being conducted before juries.

In 1898 the Supreme Court held that the jury must be composed of at least twelve persons, although this was not necessarily extended to state civil jury trials.^[44] In 1970, however, the Supreme Court held that the twelve persons requirement was a "historical accident", and upheld six-person juries in both criminal and civil cases. There is controversy over smaller juries, with proponents arguing that they are more efficient and opponents arguing that they lead to fluctuating verdicts.^[44] In later case, however, the court rejected the use of 5-person juries in criminal cases.^[44] Juries go through a selection process called voir dire in which the lawyers question the jurors and then make "peremptory strikes" (remove jurors). Traditionally the removal of jurors required no justification or explanation, but the tradition has been challenged by the Supreme Court. Since the 1970s "scientific jury selection" has become popular.^[44]

Unanimous jury verdicts have been standard in Western law. This standard was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1897, but it was rejected in 1972 in two criminal cases. As of 1999 over thirty states had laws allowing less than unanimity in civil cases, but Oregon and Louisiana are the only states which have laws allowing less than unanimous jury verdicts for criminal cases.^[44] When the required number of jurors cannot agree on a verdict (a situation sometimes referred to as a hung jury), a mistrial is declared, and the case may be retried with a newly constituted jury. The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of facts on guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge. This has not been changed by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 284 (2002), which found Arizona's practice, having the judge decide on aggravating factors making a defendant eligible for the death penalty, to be unconstitutional, and reserved that decision for the jury. However, in some states (such as Alabama or Florida), the ultimate decision on the punishment is made by the judge, and the jury gives only a non binding recommendation. The judge can impose the death penalty even if the jury recommends life without parole.^[47]

There is no set format for jury deliberations, and the jury will take a period of time to settle into discussing the evidence. Electing a foreman is usually the first step, although for a particularly short or straightforward case, this may not happen until the delivery of the verdict. If a foreman is elected at the beginning, he or she will chair the discussions. The first step will typically be to find out the initial feeling or reaction to the case, which may be by a show of hands, or via secret ballot. The jury will then attempt to arrive at a consensus verdict. The exchanges of views caused by people whose opinions differ from the emerging consensus will air the issues involved in the case, and consequently points will often arise from the trial that were not specifically discussed during it. The result of these discussions is likely to be that one interpretation is shown to be the most reasonable, and a verdict is thus achieved.

In civil cases, a petit jury determines liability and damages based upon jury instructions provided by the judge.

In criminal cases, after it is determined that a case will proceed to trial, a separate petit jury (formed of petit jurors) is then convened to hear the trial. In a few states and in death penalty cases, depending upon the law, a third jury or more often the same jury, will determine what the penalty should be or recommend what the penalty should be in the penalty phase. Usually, however, sentencing will be handled by the judge at a separate hearing. At a sentencing hearing, the burden of proof is now preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt and hearsay is allowed. This practice gives the judge the power to change the finding of the jury when deciding on a sentence.^[48]

When used alone the term jury usually refers to a petit jury, rather than a grand jury.

Jury selection[link]

Jurors are selected from a jury pool formed for a specified period of time—usually from one day to two weeks—from lists of citizens living in the jurisdiction of the court. The lists may be electoral rolls (i.e., a list of registered voters in the locale), people who have driver's licenses or other relevant data bases. When selected, being a member of a jury pool is, in principle, compulsory. Prospective jurors are sent a summons and are obligated to appear in a specified jury pool room on a specified date.

However, jurors can be released from the pool for several reasons including illness, prior commitments that can't be abandoned without hardship, change of address to outside the court's jurisdiction, travel or employment outside the jurisdiction at the time of duty, and others. Often jurisdictions pay token amounts for jury duty and many issue stipends to cover transportation expenses for jurors. Work places cannot penalize employees who serve jury duty. Payments to jurors varies by jurisdiction.^[49]

In the United States jurors for grand juries are selected from jury pools.

Selection of jurors from a jury pool occurs when a trial is announced and juror names are randomly selected and called out by the jury pool clerk. Depending on the type of trial—whether a 6 person or 12 person jury is needed, in the United States—anywhere from 15 to 30 prospective jurors are sent to the courtroom to participate in voir dire, pronounced [vwaʁ diʁ] in French, and defined as the oath to speak the truth in the examination testing competence of a juror, or in another application, a witness. Once the list of prospective jurors has assembled in the courtroom the court clerk assigns them seats in the order their names were originally drawn. At this point the judge often will ask each prospective juror to answer a list of general questions such as name, occupation, education, family relationships, time conflicts for the anticipated length of the trial. The list is usually written up and clearly visible to assist nervous prospective jurors and may include several questions uniquely pertinent to the particular trial. These questions are to familiarize the judge and attorneys with the jurors and glean biases, experiences, or relationships that could jeopardize the proper course of the trial.

After each prospective juror has answered the general slate of questions the attorneys may ask followup questions of some or all prospective jurors. Each side in the trial is allotted a certain number of challenges to remove prospective jurors from consideration. Some challenges are issued during voir dire while others are presented to the judge at the end of voir dire. The judge calls out the names of the anonymously challenged prospective jurors and those return to the pool for consideration in other trials. A jury is formed, then, of the remaining prospective jurors in the order that their names were originally chosen. Any prospective jurors not thusly impaneled return to the jury pool room.

Jury behavior[link]

Scholarly research on jury behavior in American non-capital criminal felony trials reveals that juror outcomes appear to track the opinions of the median juror, rather than the opinions of the extreme juror on the panel, although juries were required to render unanimous verdicts in the jurisdictions studied.^[50] Thus, although juries must render unanimous verdicts, in run-of-the-mill criminal trials they behave in practice as if they were operating using a majority rules voting system.

Jury effectiveness[link]

As much of the research on social conformity suggests, individuals tend to lose their sense of individuality when faced with powerful group forces (i.e., normative influence; informational influence; interpersonal influence).^[51] This seemingly stark realization raises the question: Is the effectiveness of jury decision-making compromised by individuals’ tendencies to conform to the normative transmissions of a group?

Since a clear archetype for determining guilt does not exist, the criminal justice system must rely on rulings handed down by juries. Even after a decision has been made, it is virtually impossible to know whether a jury has been correct or incorrect in freeing or accusing a defendant of a crime. Although establishing the effectiveness of juries is an arduous task, contemporary research has provided partial support for the proficiency of juries as decision makers.^[51]

The role of a Juror[link]

Evidence has shown that jurors typically take their roles very seriously.^[52] According to Simon (1980), jurors approach their responsibilities as decision makers much in the same way as a court judge – with great seriousness, a lawful mind, and a concern for consistency that is evidence-based. By actively processing evidence, making inferences, using common sense and personal experiences to inform their decision-making, research has indicated that jurors are effective decision makers that seek thorough understanding, rather than passive, apathetic participants unfit to serve on a jury.^[53]

Judge-jury agreement[link]

Evidence supporting jury effectiveness has also been illustrated in studies that investigate the parallels between judge and jury decision-making.^[54] According to Kalven and Zeisel (1966), it is not uncommon to find that the verdicts passed down by juries following a trial match the verdicts held by the appointed judges. Upon surveying judges and jurors of approximately 8000 criminal and civil trials, it was discovered that the verdicts handed down by both parties were in agreement 80% of the time.^[54] Such unpremeditated judge-jury agreement supports the notion that juries are effective decision-making bodies.

Buffering effects[link]

Jurors, like most individuals, are not free from holding social and cognitive biases. Oftentimes people negatively judge individuals who do not adhere to established social norms (e.g., individuals who dress “freakishly”) or do not meet societal standards of success. Although these biases tend to influence jurors’ individual decisions during a trial,^[55] while working as part of a group (i.e., jury), these biases are typically controlled.^[56] Groups tend to exert buffering effects that allow jurors to disregard their initial personal biases when forming a credible group decision.

Notes[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Jury

Gerald Arthur "Jerry" Sandusky (born January 26, 1944)^[2] is a retired American football coach. Sandusky served as an assistant coach for his entire career, mostly at Pennsylvania State University under Joe Paterno, and was one of the most notable major college football coaches never to have held a head coaching position. He received Assistant Coach of the Year awards in 1986 and 1999.^[3]

In 2011, he was arrested and charged with over 40 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period.^[4]

Early life and family[link]

Sandusky was born in Washington, Pennsylvania, the only son of Evelyn Mae (née Lee), an Irish Catholic homemaker who came from a small Pennsylvania coal-mining town,^[5] and Arthur Sandusky, whose parents, Edward and Josephine Sendecki, had immigrated from Poland to East Vandergrift, Pennsylvania. His father Arthur served in the field of youth service programs for over 30 years, mostly as director of the Brownson House in Washington, Pennsylvania, a community recreation center for children.^[6][6] There, he founded the Pennsylvania Junior Wrestling program and created junior basketball, volleyball, boxing and football programs for the Brownson House. He improved the facilities there by adding a new playground, gym, outdoor basketball court, and a renovated football field. He managed the 1955 Washington baseball team that won the Pony League World Series championship, the only team from Washington to win that championship. Arthur was inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame in 1989.^[6]

Jerry Sandusky attended Washington High School, where he was a good student and standout athlete, playing baseball, basketball and football.^[7] He was a leader on his junior high basketball team that went undefeated through the Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League.^[7] Personally, his classmates have described him as a studious "loner" who "never dated in high school" but was a popular and handsome athlete.^[7]

Education and playing career[link]

Sandusky played for Paterno at Penn State, starting at defensive end from 1963 to 1965.^[8] He graduated first in his class with a B.S. in health in 1966 and physical education in 1970.^[8][7]

Early coaching career[link]

Sandusky served as a graduate assistant under Paterno at Penn State in 1966. He was assistant basketball and track coach at Juniata College in 1967 and offensive line coach at Boston University in 1968.^[7]

Coaching career at Penn State[link]

He returned to Penn State in 1969 and remained there as an assistant coach until his retirement at the end of the 1999 season. Sandusky served as defensive line coach in 1969, became linebacker coach in 1970, and was promoted to defensive coordinator in 1977, holding that position until his retirement. In his years as a linebacker coach and defensive coordinator, he coached many defensive squads, and Penn State gained a reputation for outstanding linebacker play, producing 10 first-team All-Americans at that position, and acquiring the nickname "Linebacker U". Jack Ham and LaVar Arrington were two of the noted pro football greats to emerge from his teams.^[9]

His final game coaching at Penn State was a notable game for Sandusky. Penn State faced Texas A&M in the 1999 Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, Texas. The Nittany Lions' defense shut out Texas A&M, 24–0, the only bowl game shutout victory for Penn State under Paterno. Sandusky was recognized in ways usually reserved for a head coach. He was doused with a water bucket and carried to the center of the field on the shoulders of his players.^[10]

The Second Mile[link]

After retirement, Sandusky hosted many summer football camps and was active in The Second Mile, a children's charity he founded in State College, Pennsylvania in 1977.^[11]

President George H. W. Bush praised the group as a "shining example" of charity work in a 1990 letter,^[12] one of that president's much-promoted "Thousand points of light" encouragements to volunteer community organizations.^[9]

Citing Sandusky's work with The Second Mile charity to provide care for foster children, then U.S. Senator Rick Santorum honored Sandusky with an Angels in Adoption award in 2002.^[13]

Ex-Eagles head coach Dick Vermeil, current Eagles head coach Andy Reid, R.R.M. Carpenter, III, former Eagles owner, Matt Millen from ESPN, actor Mark Wahlberg, Arnold Palmer, and football player Franco Harris, among others, served on the Honorary Board of Second Mile.^[14]

Publications[link]

Sandusky co-wrote an autobiography titled Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story (ISBN 9781582612706), which was published in 2001.^[15] His co-writer was Keith "Kip" Richeal. The book also includes a quote in a foreword^[16] from football coach Dick Vermeil about Sandusky: "He could very well be the Will Rogers of the coaching profession."^[17] In the book, which was still on sale at the Penn State bookstore according to a November 12 report in a Harrisburg paper, "Sandusky paints a picture of himself as someone who would consistently take risks in pursuit of what he often refers to as 'mischief'". Other passages which look "different in light of the horrendous allegations" include:

• "[Y]ou could mess up a free lunch", Sandusky quoted his own father as telling him
• "I thrived on testing the limits of others and I enjoyed taking chances in danger"
• Sandusky telling of demonstrating his throat-hold on a Second Mile boy who'd come to Sandusky complaining of a "foster father [who] 'grabbed me around the back of my shoulders and ... made me do something when I didn't want to do it'"
• repeated descriptions of Sandusky hugging boys and talking about being very close to boys
• "I enjoyed pretending as a kid, and I love doing the same as an adult with these kids."^[18]

Other books by Sandusky include:

• Developing linebackers the Penn State way, Leisure Press, 1981; ISBN 978-0-918438-64-5
• Coaching linebackers, with Cedric X. Bryant. Coaches Choice Books, 1995; ISBN 978-1-57167-059-5
• 101 linebacker drills, with Cedric X. Bryant. Coaches Choice Books, 1997; ISBN 978-1-57167-087-8

Child sexual abuse charges[link]

On November 4, 2011, a grand jury^[19] which had been convened in September 2009, or earlier,^[9] indicted Sandusky on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys. The indictment came after a three-year investigation that explored allegations of Sandusky having inappropriate contact with a 15-year-old boy over the course of four years, beginning when the boy was ten years old. The boy's parents reported the incident to police in 2009.^[20] The jury identified eight boys that had been singled out for sexual advances or sexual assaults by Sandusky, taking place from 1994 through 2009.^[21] At least 20 of the incidents allegedly took place while Sandusky was still employed at Penn State.^[22] Attorney Joseph Amendola represented Sandusky.^[9]

On November 5, 2011, Sandusky was arrested and charged with seven counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse; eight counts of corruption of minors, eight counts of endangering the welfare of a child, seven counts of indecent assault; and other offenses.^[23] Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz (who oversaw the Penn State police department) were charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse by Sandusky.^[24][25]

According to the indictment, in 2002 assistant coach Mike McQueary, then a Penn State graduate assistant,^[26] said he walked in on Sandusky anally raping a ten-year-old boy. The next day, McQueary reported the incident to Paterno, who informed Curley. Ultimately, it is alleged, the only actions Curley and Schultz took was to bar him from bringing children to the football building, take away his keys to the locker room, and report the incident to Second Mile; these actions were approved by school president Graham Spanier.^[27] The indictment accused Curley and Schultz not only of failing to tell the police, but also of falsely telling the grand jury that McQueary never informed them of the alleged sexual activity.^[28]

Sandusky is currently free on $250,000 bail, although he is under house arrest and several other conditions. He could face life in prison if convicted of the charges.^[29] Inside Edition reports that Sandusky's home is very close to an elementary school.^[30]

Penn State has been the subject of significant media criticism for allegations that several members of its staff, ranging from the University President down to a graduate assistant, covered up Sandusky's alleged assaults.^[31] Maureen Dowd wrote of the scandal, "Like the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, the Penn State hierarchy appears to have covered up pedophile crimes to protect its brand."^[31]

On November 6, 2011, Penn State banned Sandusky from campus.^[32] His bail conditions did not include restrictions on his travel.^[33]

On November 10, 2011, the Sandusky home, which is located next to an elementary school and playground, was vandalized.^[34]

On November 14, in a televised phone interview on NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams, Sandusky admitted to correspondent Bob Costas to having showered with underage boys and touching their bodies, as he described it "without intent of sexual contact." Sandusky denied being a pedophile.^[35] The interview received substantial coverage in the media, particularly regarding the manner in which Sandusky answered Costas when asked if he is sexually attracted to young boys:^[36][37][38]

COSTAS: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?"

SANDUSKY: "Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?"
COSTAS: "Yes."

SANDUSKY: "Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."
^[39][40][41]

In the days following the interview, several potential victims contacted State College lawyer Andy Shubin to tell their stories, with one claiming Sandusky had abused him in the 1970s.^[42]

Because of the scandal, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, a non-profit adoption awareness organization, rescinded its 2002 Angels in Adoption award to Jerry and Dorothy Sandusky.^[43] Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who nominated Sandusky and his wife for the award, has said he is "devastated" by the scandal.^[44]

On December 7, 2011, Sandusky was arrested for a second time on additional counts of sexual abuse. Bail was set for $250,000, which he paid the next day. He is under house arrest and several other conditions, such as being prohibited from being in the unsupervised presence of minors. Sandusky must also wear an electronic monitor at all times.^[45] In an interview with Jo Becker of the New York Times^[46] Sandusky gave his explanation of the eight allegations in the Grand Jury Presentment.

Becker: "You must have some theory, Without getting into individual cases or naming names."
Sandusky: "You would have to, to have my understanding of that. What I think? I mean, What I think are that these are individual matters. These kids, some of them, I know them. Some of them. I don't know all of them. [lawyer Amendola interjects 'we're assuming']. We're assuming we know them. Two of the kids. My gut feeling would be that they got pulled into this."

Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo handled press questions for the state at the time of the preliminary hearing date. Magistrate Judge Robert Scott presided.^[47]

Family[link]

Sandusky is married. He and his wife Dorothy "Dottie" (née Gross), whom he married in 1966, have six adopted children^[48] and took in foster children.^[8] One son, Jon Sandusky, is Director of Player Personnel for the Cleveland Browns.^[49][50] Another son, E. J. Sandusky, is an assistant football coach at West Chester University.^[51]

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Second Mile
• Centre County, Penn. Grand Jury Findings of Facts
• Sandusky, Penn State case timeline

Gene Hackman
Hackman in June 2008
Born	Eugene Allen Hackman (1930-01-30) January 30, 1930 (age 82) San Bernardino, California, U.S.
Residence	Santa Fe, New Mexico
Nationality	American
Alma mater	Pasadena Playhouse
Occupation	Actor, Author
Years active	1961–2006
Home town	Danville, Illinois
Spouse	Faye Maltese (m. 1956–1986; divorced) Betsy Arakawa (m. 1991–present)
Children	3
Awards	Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, BAFTAs Award

Eugene Allen "Gene" Hackman^[1] (born January 30, 1930) is a retired American actor and novelist.

Nominated for five Academy Awards, winning two, Hackman has also won three Golden Globes and two BAFTAs in a career that spanned five decades. He first came to fame in 1967 with his performance as Buck Barrow in Bonnie and Clyde. His major subsequent films include The French Connection (1971), in which he played Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle; The Poseidon Adventure (1972); The Conversation (1974); Superman (1978), in which he played arch-villain Lex Luthor; Hoosiers (1986); Mississippi Burning (1987); Unforgiven (1992); The Firm (1993); Crimson Tide (1995); Get Shorty (1995); The Birdcage (1996); Enemy of the State (1998); and The Royal Tenenbaums (2001).

Early life[link]

Hackman was born in San Bernardino, California, the son of Lyda (née Gray) and Eugene Ezra Hackman.^[2] He has a brother, Richard. His family moved frequently, finally settling in Danville, Illinois, where they lived in the house of his English-born maternal grandmother, Beatrice.^[3] Hackman's father operated the printing press for the Commercial-News, a local paper.^[4] Hackman's parents divorced in 1943 and his father subsequently left the family.^[3][4]

Gene lived briefly in Storm Lake, Iowa and his sophomore home room photograph is in the 1945 Storm Lake High School "Breeze" year-book. At sixteen years, Hackman left home to join the United States Marine Corps, where he served four-and-a-half years as a field radio operator.^[5] After his discharge, he moved to New York, working in several minor jobs.^[5] His mother died in 1962 as a result of a fire she accidentally set while smoking.^[6]

Career[link]

1960s[link]

In 1956, Hackman began pursuing an acting career; he joined the Pasadena Playhouse in California.^[5] It was there that he forged a friendship with another aspiring actor, Dustin Hoffman.^[5] Already seen as outsiders by their classmates, Hackman and Hoffman were later voted "The Least Likely To Succeed."^[5] Determined to prove them wrong, Hackman hopped on a bus bound for New York City. A 2004 article in Vanity Fair described how Hackman, Hoffman and Robert Duvall were all struggling actors and close friends while living in New York City in the 1960s. Hackman was working as a doorman when he ran into an instructor whom he had despised at the Pasadena Playhouse. Reinforcing "The Least Likely To Succeed" vote, the man had said, "See, Hackman, I told you you wouldn't amount to anything."

Hackman began performing in several Off-Broadway plays. In 1964, he had an offer to co-star in the play^[7] Any Wednesday with actress Sandy Dennis. This opened the door to film work. His first role was in Lilith, with Warren Beatty in the leading role. In 1967, Hackman appeared in an episode of the television series The Invaders entitled The Spores. Another supporting role, Buck Barrow in 1967's Bonnie and Clyde,^[5] earned him an Academy Award nomination as Best Supporting Actor. In 1968, he appeared in an episode of "I Spy", in the role of "Hunter", in the episode "Happy Birthday...Everybody".^[7] In 1969, he played a ski coach in Downhill Racer and an astronaut in Marooned. Also in that year, he played the role of a member of a barnstorming skydiving team that entertained mostly at county fairs: The Gypsy Moths. He nearly accepted the role of Mike Brady for the upcoming TV series, The Brady Bunch, but was advised by his agent to decline in exchange for a more promising role, which he did.

1970s[link]

In 1971, he was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award again, this time for 1970's I Never Sang for My Father, working alongside Melvyn Douglas and Estelle Parsons. The next year, he won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance as New York City Detective Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle in The French Connection, marking his graduation to leading man status.^[5]

He followed this with leading roles in the disaster film The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation (1974), which was nominated for several Oscars.^[5] That same year, Hackman appeared in what became one of his most famous comedic roles as the blind hermit in Young Frankenstein.

He later appeared as one of Teddy Roosevelt's former Rough Riders in the Western horse-race saga Bite the Bullet (1975), as well as in that year's sequel French Connection II and the star-studded war film A Bridge Too Far (1977), as Polish General Stanislaw Sosabowski. Hackman showed a talent for both comedy and the "slow burn" as criminal mastermind Lex Luthor in Superman: The Movie (1978), as he would in its 1980 and 1987 sequels.

1980s[link]

Gene Hackman in 1989

By the end of the 1980s, Hackman alternated between leading and supporting roles, earning another Best Actor nomination for Mississippi Burning. He had a memorable part as a Secretary of Defense trying to cover up a homicide in 1987's No Way Out opposite Kevin Costner.

During this decade Hackman also could be seen in Reds, Under Fire, Hoosiers, Power, Uncommon Valor and Bat*21. A 2008 American Film Institute poll voted Hoosiers the fourth-greatest film of all time in the sports genre.

1990s[link]

In 1990, the actor underwent an angioplasty, which kept him from work for a while, although he found time for Narrow Margin—a remake of The Narrow Margin (1952). In 1992, he played the sadistic sheriff "Little" Bill Daggett in the western Unforgiven directed by Clint Eastwood and written by David Webb Peoples which earned him a second Oscar, this time for Best Supporting Actor. The film won Best Picture.^[5]

Hackman co-starred with Tom Cruise as a corrupt lawyer in The Firm (1993) and appeared in a second John Grisham story in 1996, playing a convict on death row in The Chamber.

In 1995, Hackman played an inept Hollywood producer in Get Shorty and the villainous fast-draw champion John Herrod in The Quick and the Dead opposite Sharon Stone, Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, as well as submarine Captain Frank Ramsey in the film Crimson Tide with Denzel Washington.

In 1996, he took a comedic turn as ultra-conservative Senator Kevin Keeley in The Birdcage with Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. He also co-starred with Will Smith in the 1998 film Enemy of the State, where his character was reminiscent of the one from The Conversation.

He played a President of the United States who commits a murder in 1997's Absolute Power, re-teaming with director-star Clint Eastwood.

2000s[link]

Hackman starred in the David Mamet crime film Heist, as an aging professional thief of considerable skill who is forced into one final job and the comedy Heartbreakers alongside Sigourney Weaver, Ray Liotta and Jennifer Love Hewitt. He also had a leading role as the head of an eccentric family in the ensemble cast film The Royal Tenenbaums and in yet another Grisham legal drama, Runaway Jury, at long last getting to make a picture with his longtime friend Dustin Hoffman.

In 2003 at the Golden Globes, Hackman was honored with the Cecil B. DeMille Award for his "outstanding contribution to the entertainment field."^[8]

Retirement[link]

Hackman at a book signing in June 2008

Together with undersea archaeologist Daniel Lenihan, Hackman has written three historical fiction novels: Wake of the Perdido Star (1999), a sea adventure of the 19th century, Justice for None (2004), a Depression-era tale of murder, and Escape from Andersonville (2008) about a prison escape during the Civil War. Payback at Morning Peak (2011) is his first solo effort, a story of love and revenge set in the Old West.

On July 7, 2004, Hackman gave a rare interview to Larry King, in which Hackman announced that he had no future film projects lined up and believes his acting career is over. In 2008, while promoting his third novel, Hackman confirmed that he had retired from acting.^[9] In 2011, Hackman appeared on the Fox Sports radio show, the Loose Cannons, where he discussed his career and novels with Pat O'Brien, Steve Hartman and Vic "the Brick" Jacobs. His final film to date was Welcome to Mooseport (2004), a comedy with Ray Romano in which Hackman portrayed a former President of the United States.

Personal life[link]

Hackman's first wife was Faye Maltese. They had three children, Christopher Allen, Elizabeth Jean and Leslie Anne.^{[citation needed]} The couple divorced in 1986 after three decades of marriage. In 1991, Hackman married Betsy Arakawa. They live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Betsy is co-owner of an upscale retail home furnishings store in Santa Fe called Pandora's, Inc.

Hackman competed in Sports Car Club of America races driving an open wheeled Formula Ford in the late seventies. In 1983, Hackman drove a Dan Gurney Team Toyota in the 24 Hours of Daytona Endurance Race. He also won the Long Beach Grand Prix Celebrity Race.

Hackman is an avid fan of the Jacksonville Jaguars and regularly attended Jaguars games as a guest of then head coach Jack Del Rio. Hackman is friends with Del Rio from Del Rio's playing days at the University of Southern California.^[10]

On January 13, 2012, Gene Hackman was struck by a car while riding a bicycle in Islamorada, Florida. He sustained minor injuries and was transported to Ryder Trauma Center in Miami, Florida.^[11]

Filmography[link]