Legal Definition of a \'Jury

¶ … legal definition of a 'jury of one's peers' refers to the fact that the available jurors are representative of a broad diversity of race, ethnicity and gender. The terms 'one's peers' is a curious one and possibly, too, incorrect since 'peers' connotes some sort of shared identity or 'equal' level whereas the jury may, and often will, deliberately vary in age and in all demographic factors. Furthermore, curious is the fact that this phrase appears nowhere in the American Constitution which simply insists on an "impartial jury" (Sixth Amendment) without elaborating, and with technicalities of jury selection and composition emerging from the Fourteenth Amendment: "equal protection of the laws." In order to gain as fair and as varied a sample as possible, the jury is selected by a randomized system.

The term 'Jury of their peers" may, in fact be more authentic today than ever before, since government has recognized the need to create a jury pool that is more illustrative of the community that the plaintiff belongs to. This is particularly so since the case rests on the outcome of the jurors, therefore it would be helpful for jurors to be intimately acquainted with the way of life of the accused (The American Jury Bulwark of Democracy).

Impeachment

At least three special techniques may be used to impeach the witness. These consist of implying and showing evidence of bias and inconsistent statement. The attorney may also induce the witness to contradict hero own testimony.

1. Bias -- that the witness is biased in the outcome of the case. The attorney questions the witness to see if he/she admits. If no admission results, the cross-examiner may expose the bias through other means.

2. Inconsistent statement -- the cross-examiner highlights inconsistent statements thereby lowering his credibility

3. Contradiction -- this differs from inconsistent statements in that the latter invokes statements made out of court or in prior proceedings whereas contradiction refers to contrast in the same testimony.

The purpose of these impeachment techniques is to verify to the best of one's purpose that the jury members are objective and competent as well as reliable enough to officiate in the trial.

Limitations placed are that a party may only impeach his own witness if the witness were an adverse party (i.e. called to stand; if the witness was hostile; if law as witness required the witness; and if the witness surprised the party by offering damaging testimony. It seems to me that the technique of 'bias' is the most important specifically so since witnesses have to be above bias, and one biased witness can potentially corrode jury decision-making.

Defendant's decision to testify / not testify

A defendant may want to testify at his own trial due to not having the resources to employ the lawyer he most wants to represent him, or due to feeling that the lawyer given him will not make as effective an appeal as he himself can.

The defendant may not be cross-examined by the prosecutor since the Fifth Amendment protects defendants from incriminating themselves or from allowing others to incriminate them. These potential dangers may result in the lack of a fair trial by jury.