The U.S. Jury System: An Insight from a Civil Lawyer’s Perspective



The trial by jury can be described as the cornerstone of the U.S. legal system, facilitating the community’s participation in the legal process and thereby serving as a protection against arbitrary action and oppression by the Government. It is constitutionally guaranteed in both criminal and civil cases, the former by Amendment No. 6, the latter by Amendment No. 7. In the U.S. legal system the jury trial is a genuine and strong right, safeguarded by the possibility of jury nullification and the effective double jeopardy requirement following an acquittal by a jury in criminal cases, giving the jury the absolute power to acquit the defendant without accountability. Compared to the jury system available in Austria, one of the few civil law countries retaining jury trials, the U.S. system conveys much more power to the juries, thereby preventing any undue influence by the state. The following article will describe and analyze the goals, function, and operation of the U.S. jury system and point out the vast differences to the present jury system in Austrian law. As trial by jury is only available in criminal proceedings in Austria, the focus will be on the jury system in criminal trials.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aistleitner, Wolfgang. “Denkmalschutz für Geschworenengerichte.” Juridikum (2001): 44–46.Google Scholar
  2. Babcock, Barbara Allen, and Ticien Marie Sassoubre. “Symposium: The 50th Anniversary of 12 Angry Men: Deliberation in 12 Angry Men.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 82 (2007): 633–642.Google Scholar
  3. Babcock, Barbara Allen. “Voir Dire: Preserving Its Wonderful Power.” Stanford Law Review 27 (1975): 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertel, Christian, and Andreas Venier. Strafprozessrecht. Wien: Manz, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Bissel, John W. “Symposium: Juries: Arbiters or Arbitrary? Redefining the Role of the Jury: Comments on Jury Nullification.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 7 (1997): 51–56.Google Scholar
  6. Brandstetter, Wolfgang. “Zur Reform des Strafprozessualen Hauptverfahrens.” Gutachten. 15. Österreichischer Juristentag. Band IV/I. Wien: Manz, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Broderick, Raymond J. “Why the Peremptory Challenge Should be Abolished.” Temple Law Review 65 (1992): 369–423.Google Scholar
  8. Brody, David C. “Sparf and Dougherty Revisited: Why the Court Should Instruct the Jury of its Nullification Right.” American Criminal Law Review 33 (1995): 88–112.Google Scholar
  9. Burgstaller, Manfred, Konrad Schima, and Franz Csazar. Die Aussetzung der Entscheidung im Verfahren vor den Geschworenengrichten. Wien/New York: Springer. 1968.Google Scholar
  10. Burgstaller, Manfred. “Argumente für die Geschworenengerichtsbarkeit.” Juristische Blätter (2006): 69–75.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, Paul. “Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System.” Yale Law Journal 105 (1995): 677–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrd, Sharon. Einführung in die anglo-amerikanische Rechtssprache. München/Wien/Bern: C.H. Beck, Manz, Stämpfli, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Cavise, Leonard I. “The Batson Doctrine: The Supreme Court’s Utter Failure to Meet the Challenge of Discrimination in Jury Selection.” Wisconsin Law Review (1999): 527–528.Google Scholar
  14. Chen, Tina. “The Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial: Why Is It a Fundamental Right for Adults and not Juveniles?” Journal of Juvenile Law 28 (2007), 1–10.Google Scholar
  15. Conrad, Clay S. Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine. Cato Institute: Carolina Academic Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. Danek, Michael. 15. Österreichischer Juristen Tag. Band IV/2 Wien: Manz, 2004, 68–69.Google Scholar
  17. Dann Michael B., and George III. Logan. “Jury Reform: The Arizona Experience.” Judicature 79 (1996): 280–288.Google Scholar
  18. Dann, Michael B. “Learning Lessons’ and’ speaking Rights’: Creating Educated and Democratic Juries.” Indiana Law Journal 68 (1993): 1229–1279.Google Scholar
  19. Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Valerie P. Hans, and Thomas G. Munsterman. “How Much Justice Hangs in the Balance? A New Look at Hung Jury Rates.” Judicature 83 (1999): 59–67.Google Scholar
  20. Hannaford-Agor, Paula L., Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, and Thomas G. Munsterman. “Ale Hung Juries a Problem?” Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, September 30, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Hans, Valerie P., Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Nicole Mott, and Thomas G. Munsterman. “The Hung Jury: The American Jury’s Insights and Contemporary Understanding.” Criminal Law Bulletin 39 (2003): 33–50.Google Scholar
  22. Hans, Valerie. “The Jury’s Role in Administering Justice in the United States: U.S. Jury Reform: The Active Jury and the Adversarial Trial.” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 21 (2002): 85–97.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffman, Morris B. “Peremptory Challenges Should Be Abolished: A Trial Judge’s Perspective.” University of Chicago Law Review 64 (1997): 809–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horwitz, Barbara L. “The Extinction of the Peremptory Challenge: What Will the Jury System Lose by its Demise?” University of Cincinnati Law Review 61 (1993): 1391–1440.Google Scholar
  25. Horwitz, Irwin A, Norbert L. Kerr, and Keith E. Niedermeier. “Jury Nullification: Legal and Psychological Perspectives.” Brooklyn Law Review 66 (2001): 1207–1249.Google Scholar
  26. Hostettler, John. The Criminal Jury Old and New: Winchester: Waterside Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  27. Jonakait, Randolph N. The American Jury System. New Haven: Yale Contemporary Law Series, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. Kalt, Brian C. “The Exclusion of Felons from Jury Service.” American University Law Review 53 (2003): 65–188.Google Scholar
  29. Kalven, Harry, Jr., and Hans Zeisel. The American Jury. Boston: Little Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  30. Kirchbacher, Kurt. De 15. Österreichischer Juristen Tag. Band IV/2. Wien: Manz, 2004. 13–29.Google Scholar
  31. Leipold, Andrew D. “Rethinking Jury Nullification.” Virginia Law Review 82 (1996): 253–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leipold, Andrews D. “The Dangers of Race-Based Jury Nullification: A Response to Professor Butler.” UCLA Law Review 44 (1996): 109–141.Google Scholar
  33. Moos, Reinhard. “Die Reform der Hauptverhandlung II.” Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung (2003): 369–381.Google Scholar
  34. Morgan, Alex R. “Jury Nullification Should Be Made a Routine Part of the Criminal Justice System, but It Won’t Be.” Arizona State Law Journal 29 (1997): 1127–1143.Google Scholar
  35. Murschetz, Verena. Auslieferung und Europäischer Haftbefehl. Wien/New York: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  36. Philipp, Thomas. “§ § 318–343” Wiener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung Ed. Helmut Fuchs and Eckart Ratz. Wien: Manz, 2004.Google Scholar
  37. Rueprecht, Katharina. “Die Jury im inquisitorischen Strafprozess.” Journal für Strafrecht Zeitschrift für Kriminalrecht, Polizeirecht und Soziale Arbeit (2003): 121–128.Google Scholar
  38. Sadoghi, Alice. Thesen zur Geschworenengerichtsbarkeit — Historische Aufarbeitung und Perspektiven. Linz: Trauner, 2007.Google Scholar
  39. Sadoghi, Alice. “Die Geschworenengerichtsbarkeit in den internationalen Strafverfahrensordnungen.” Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung (2007): 231–237.Google Scholar
  40. Sarokin, Lee H., and Thomas G. Munsterman. “Recent Innovations in Civil Jury Trial Procedures.” Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System Ed. Robert E. Litan. Washington. D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1993, 378–398.Google Scholar
  41. Shepard, Randall T. “Survey: Introduction: Jury Trials Aren’t What They Used to Be.” Indiana Law Review 38 (2005): 859–866.Google Scholar
  42. Stern, Simon. “Between Local Knowledge and National Politics: Debating Rationales for Jury Nullification after Bushell’s Case.” Yale law Journal 111 (2002): 1815–1859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vidmar, Neil. “The Performance of the American Civil Jury: An Empirical Perspective.” Arizona Law Review 40 (1998): 849–899.Google Scholar
  44. Warshawsky, Steven M. “Opposing Jury Nullification: Law, Policy, and Prosecutorial Strategy.” Georgetown Law Journal 85 (1996): 191–235.Google Scholar
  45. Weh, Wilfried Ludwig. “Die Öffentlichkeit des summing up als Kernstück des fairen Geschworenenverfahrens.” Juridikum (2002): 163–167.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und KriminologieUniversität InnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations