十二怒汉背景

in the federal courts by the U.S. Constitution, and every state uses them.
任何一方当事人都有权利对现任陪审团成员就以下三个方面要求其回 避：
a. 陪审员在事实上不符合法定要求；或者 b. 陪审员存有偏见；或者 c. 具有合理理由怀疑陪审员可能对被告存在偏见。
Trial By Jury 陪审团初审
• A jury trial is a trial of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the case is presented to a jury and the factual questions and the final judgment ajury system is traceable to nine-century France and was imported to England by William the Conqueror. In its earliest form, a jury was a group of the defendant’s neighbors, who were expected to answer questions based on their own knowledge. Such jurors functioned as both witnesses and triers of fact. Later, the right to a jury trial was guaranteed by Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution and by the separate state constitutions.
英美法系的陪审团制度是一个非常著名的政治制度。 它由招募来的法律外行者组成，数目不多于12个，这 些成员是在最广泛的公民之中随机产生的；在特别的 初审案件中将他们召集起来；这些成员是由于被信任 而被赋予的判决案件的伟大权力；他们被允许对案件 进行秘密评议并提供他们最终的判决结果，而可以不 用给予任何理由；最后，他们在履行完对这个国家的 短暂的义务之后，这个组织中的成员将被解散，并回 归到他们正常的私人生活中。
• 陪审团初审的意思是指一个案件或者刑事 指控的初审，这个案子被呈现在陪审团面 前，它的事实问题的认定和最终的判定都 由陪审团决定
• The jury trial finds expression_r in the American legal system in three places: the grand jury, the criminal petit jury, and civil petit jury. Each is guaranteed
• 初审案件中陪审团的功能是认定案件的事实。这些成员全 部都是没有任何法学知识的外行，但却能胜任于提出法律 上的意见。他们必须倚赖他们最为普通的感知来分析被告 以及不利于他的证据，以便确定判决结论。法官的功能则 是解释法律（拉丁语 inter alia），向陪审团解释法律，通 过法官的解释，使得陪审团成员在其自身对于法律的理解 之上做出判决。法官与陪审团的关系是非常紧密的。法官 主持审判，解决任何的在审判中提出的陪审团想要听到的 证据采信方面的法律上的问题。如果证据不足以说明所起 诉的问题，陪审团可以做出宣告被告无罪的指令。为了使 陪审团在证据之上得到结论，在陪审团作出判决解散之前， 法官要负责搜集和概括已往的案例。在这一点上，法官能 做的仅此这些。法官可以运用他所搜集的先例向陪审团表 明这个唯一合理的判决可能是一个有罪的判决，然而，这 却并不是一个主动的司法强制力指示陪审团成员作出被告 有罪的判决。即使一个陪审团的判决是荒谬的，法官却不 能做任何改变；这个判决结果必须被接受。如果判决是宣 告无罪，法官不能质疑这个宣告的有效性。对于英国王室 法院的无罪宣告，任何人不允许上诉，并且一旦被告被宣 告无罪，他将不会以同类犯罪理由再被起诉。
陪审团全体成员全部都由随机产生，诉讼中的任何一方当事人都要对 即将被选出的陪审团全体人员进行检查，从而确定。为了减少陪审员 成员确定的盲目性，必须要对这些人员的背景进行调查，以便确认他 们是否适合担当陪审团义务。
B. Challenging Jury Membership 申请回避 （挑战陪审团成员）
history background The Role Of The Jury 陪审团角色 Selection Of The Jury 陪审团的选拔 Trial By Jury 陪审团初审 Grand Jury 大陪审团
• The Anglo-American jury is a remarkable political institution. It recruits a group of no more than 12 laypersons, chosen at random from the widest population; it convenes them for the purpose of the particular trial; it entrusts them with great official powers of decision; it permits them to carry on deliberations in secret and to report our their final judgment without giving reasons for it; and, after their momentary service to the state has been completed, it orders them to disband and return to private life.
• 任何年龄在18至70岁，在陪审团选拔人注册名录 上登记的人都具有担任陪审员的合法资格。不具 有合法资格的人是指法院系统的人和其他包含在 司法系统中的成员，例如出庭律师和事物律师， 神职人员和心智不全的人。
A. Jury Vetting 陪审员审查
The panel is selected at random and any party to the proceedings can inspect the panel from which the jurors will be chosen. Jury vetting, as a means to reduce the randomness, is the investigation of jurors’ backgrounds to determine whether they are suitable for jury service.
Either party has the right to challenge the presence of a juror on three grounds:
a. the juror is in fact not qualified; or
b. the juror is biased; or
c. the juror may be reasonably suspected of bias against the defendant.
• 陪审团制度可以追溯到九世纪的法国，然 后被征服者——威廉姆斯大帝引入英国。 在它的雏形时期，陪审团由被告的邻居组 成，他们被期望基于他们自己的知识来回 答相关提问。这种陪审员的功能相当于证 人和事实的审判者。后来，陪审团初审的 权利被权利法案，美国联邦宪法和各州宪 法所保护下来。
• The jury’s function during a trial is to decide the facts of the case. They are laypersons and have no knowledge of law and are competent to put forward any opinion on law. They have to rely upon their common sense to assess the accused and the evidence against him in order to reach a verdict. It is the judge’s function, inter alia, to explain the law to the jury and they reach a verdict through their understanding of the law explained by him. The relationship between a judge and a jury is very influential. The judge conducts the trial, decides any legal issues that arise during the trial and controls the evidence the jury is allowed to hear. If the evidence is weak the judge can instruct the jury to acquit the accused. At the conclusion of the evidence the judge will sum up the case to the jury before they retire to reach a verdict. The judge at this point can do no more. The judge can use his summing up to indicate to the jury that the only reasonable decision to reach would be a guilty verdict; however, there is no actual judicial power to instruct juries to convict an accused. If the jury’s verdict is a perverse one there is nothing more the judge can do; it must be accepted. If the verdict is acquittal, it is unchallengeable. There is no appeal against an acquittal in Crown Court and further, once the accused is acquittal, he can be not be charged with the same offence again.