Talk:Jury

Clarity

I agree the clarity of the article is not sufficient. It certainly was very confusing to me, being from a country (India) that no longer has a jury process - the overview section needs to be clarified and take a more bird's-eye view so that it serves to orient the reader first, rather than plunge right into the details.

I found the jury trial article to be more useful and helpful for people referring up "jury" for the first time. I vote that these two articles be merged completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asvravi (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC (UTC)

Powers of jurors to intervene during trial

Do individual jurors have the right to interrupt a trial in order to ask questions of counsel and witnesses ? Ive heard that they do (in UK law) but that most people dont realise this and that its rarely explained to jurors that they can do this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.232 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC (UTC)

Yes, by handing a note to the judge via a member of court staff (a clerk or usher) the jury can ask questions of counsel or request that questions are put to witnesses in England and Wales.

Out of date?

"Jury trials in complex fraud cases have been described by some members and appointees of the Labour Party as expensive and time-consuming". But (1) If you go to the main article on juries in England and Wales, there's no mention of any of this. (2) It is unclear that it is important enough to be in the brief summary of English juries in the present article. (3) Also, it is unclear whether it is current Labour policy or only the policy of the last Labour government, which left government 8 years ago. 5.80.55.112 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Too Many Headings

I feel that if you were to come into the article looking for a broad overview the overview section is lacking, but also if you need specific information it is very hard to find due to the many headers that all have very similar and confusing titles. I think this needs to be fixed by combining some of the headings into more broad categories like trial, selection, and sentencing with sub-headings for more specific topics. Hollywood43ar (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the section Trial procedures, it's really not a problem. I think the trial proceedings portion is lengthy enough that it could be spun out into another subarticle per WP:SPINOUT, i.e. Jury trial procedures by country or the like. I'd hate to cut the headings down instead, because they serve a valuable navigational purpose. What do others think? TJRC (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Roman juries

Per this scholarly source and this rather old one, 1921,, Roman juries were a thing. Their composition was dependent on wealth/social class and included at least one lawyer in later years. Obviously, jury selection was not really a thing beyond class, and their function was a bit different (guilt or innocence remained however). I'm curious if this is worth including on the page, given that the "historical roots" section begins after ancient history. Appreciate any thoughts! Delukiel (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"Jury sentencing" section could be moved

Most of the "jury sentencing" section is exclusively about this topic in the US setting - maybe it should be moved to Juries in the United States? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ascendingrisingharmonising, I think that's a good idea. I'll do that, and leave just a little bit here with a link pointing to the details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)