What is the difference between a grand jury and a regular trial jury?
Q. How long does Grand jury members serve? How are they selected? Give as many details as you can, please.
Asked by Janis G - Thu Jan 18 10:41:22 2007 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments

A. A grand jury is an investigative body that works in conjunction with the prosecutor's office to produce indictments of felony crimes for trial. The purpose of the grand jury system is to assure that prosecutions are based on reasonable standards of evidence, and that prosecutors are bringing cases to the courts worth the expense and anguish of criminal trial. A trial jury is selected to serve soley for a specific court case, and decides upon guilt or innocence, and in some capital cases, recommendations for sentencing. The trial jury is dismissed at the conclusion of the case. The selection of a grand jury varies slightly from jurisdicition to jurisdiction. Generally, a citizen who is interested in serving on the grand jury can apply at… [cont.]
Answered by Jack C - Thu Jan 18 10:53:58 2007

When did an impartial jury replace a jury of one's peers? And why SHOULD a jury be impartial?
Q. If a particularly heinous crime (ie. the Atlanta courtroom shootings) occurs in front of cameras and many witnesses, why must a bunch of people who don't know much be the jury? We must indeed bend over backward to protect the Constitutional presumption of innocence, and provide A (one)lawyer to protect those rights, but not a whole team of implausible bumblers! You misread! It's the defense team of bumblers. But a "jury of peers" need not be impartial, just fair.
Asked by Thorbjorn - Sun May 11 20:24:03 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Because the founders of our nation wanted to give the presumption of innocence. Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be imprisoned. The jury is filled with people who are blank slates to the facts of the crime, because we want the jurors to come in as free from biases as possible. If they had viewed the incident happening, they may not have seen it from the correct angle, or they could have been too emotionally scarred and render too harsh a verdict. It is up to the advocates to present the story and the evidence accurately to the jurors through the witnesses and the video. Once the jury has all the facts - facts that every witness doesn't have - they make… [cont.]
Answered by Yellow B - Sun May 11 20:37:55 2008

What is the point in having a jury at an inquest if they cannot give the verdict they believe to be correct?
Q. Why has the coroner in the Menezes inquest banned the jury from giving an "unlawful killing verdict"? It's hard to see how any other verdict could be reached, how on Earth could his killing have been anything but unlawful? Because mistakes were made cannot make killing an innocent person legal. My sympathies lie entirely with the Menezes family.
Asked by Arthur B - Fri Dec 5 07:08:07 2008 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments

A. This does seem strange, although I understand that there are legal definitions attached to each verdict, and for an unlawful killing verdict it would have to have been carried out by a specific officer had committed manslaughter or murder.
Answered by proud walker - Thu Dec 11 22:26:25 2008