Talk:Jury

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)

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.

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)

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)

Having the jury nullification section under 'criticisms' is tendentious, because some people think that it is a strength of the jury system, rather than a criticism. If it were in its own section, it would be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjamesinfirmary (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)