Cursed, reviled, blessed, or praised, the jury has stood firm for seven hundred years. So firmly did our forefathers uphold the jury that we find the right to jury trial anchored in our federal and state constitutions.
There are two types of juries. The first, the petit jury, is used in both civil and criminal cases. In civil cases its task is generally to determine liability to pay money damages； in criminal cases its task is to determine punishable guilt, and it usually does so with a minimum of criticism. There its position as a bulwark of liberty, a protector against executive oppression, and a mode of lessening the rigors of too-strict legislation is secure. In England, where the use of the civil jury has been greatly reduced by legislation, the criminal jury remains in its traditional form. It is a noteworthy fact, however, that the jury is not now and has never been required to be used in equity cases.
The civil jury, however, is subject to much criticism. It appears, sometimes, to be a means whereby individuals can obtain unjust judgements against corporate defendants, for the jury may tend to ally itself with the underdog. The jury is, in many instances, incompetent to handle involved testimony, particularly on technical matters. In this country, nevertheless, accusations of bias, incompetence, capriciousness, unpredictability, delay, and expense usually have gone unheeded.
The trial jury, to speak for the moment in its defense, is presented with a difficult task. It must reconstruct history. It must determine the facts of a past transaction. If its verdicts seem excessive, one must keep in mind the impossibility of determining the money value of such intangibles as pain and suffering or loss of reputation. Any criticism of the jury must also take into account possible alternative methods of finding facts. And in such deliberations it must not be forgotten that jury verdicts do not create precedents.
The second type of jury is the grand jury. It differs from the trial or petit jury in that it does not decide questions of guilt or innocence. Its function is accusatory. When a possible offender is brought before a magistrate, and the magistrate believes there is suspicion of guilt, the matter is presented to the grand jury for investigation. If the grand jury finds enough evidence to warrant a trial, it will issue a true bill of indictment5 and the case will proceed. If the evidence is insufficient, the case will be dismissed. On occasion, the grand jury is charged with a special commission to investigate specific types of possible criminal activity among the general population or among governmental officials, and such investigations may also result in indictments. The grand jury has been abolished in England and in approximately one-half of the states in the U. S. Its existence, however, is guaranteed by the Constitution in federal cases.
Both types of juries fit the classic definition given by Frederick Maitland6 many years ago： that a jury is a body of neighbors summoned under oath by a public official to answer questions. The trial jury answers the question of guilt or innocence, liability or nonliability； the grand jury determines whether there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal trial. Not only do these juries fit the same definition, but they derive, ultimately and in the distant past, from the same origins.
The foundation of the jury system goes back a thousand years to the French empire of the Carolingian kings. Those monarchs, as part of their successful attempt to unite their empire, developed a procedure called the inquest, or inquisition, to determine the nature and extent of royal rights. They called together the people of the countryside and required them to relate their understanding of the immemorial rights of the king. The rights being ascertained, they were adopted by the central administration. There was neither accusation, verdict, nor judgement in these proceedings, but the inquest fixed the right of the state to obtain information from its citizens.
譯文
不管褒貶，陪審團制度已有約700年的歷史了。我們的先輩們是如此的擁護這一制度，以至于我們可以毫不費力地在聯(lián)邦憲法和州憲法中找到它的蹤跡。
陪審團有兩種形式。第一種叫小陪審團，可用于審理民事和刑事案件。在審理民事案件中，它的主要任務是依責任程度的不同而裁定相應的損害賠償金；在審理刑事案件中，它的主要任務是裁定該判處何種罪行，并經(jīng)常會裁定至最低限度。因此，小陪審團制度有力地保障了自由，抵抗了行政壓制及減輕了立法的苛刻性。在英國，小陪審團制度在民事案件中的使用由于立法而大大減少，但在刑事案件中的使用卻沒有多大的改變。值得注意的是，陪審團制度已不再成為趨勢，而且也不能適用于衡平法中。
然而，民事陪審團制度正遭受非議。有時候，小陪審團制度顯得只是一種手段，因此由于陪審團多半同情處于弱勢的一方，個人常會在應付共同被告時受到不公正判決。多數(shù)情況下，陪審團對于復雜的證據(jù)無能為力，尤其是具有科技性的證據(jù)。不過在該國，對于陪審團的偏見、無能、反復無常、無預見性、辦事拖拉及費用昂貴等諸多不是通常都被忽視了。
小陪審團審理案件是一項相當復雜的工作。它必須重構歷史，推斷過去發(fā)生事件的細節(jié)。如果裁決看起來過分了，它就必須牢記遭受痛苦或損失聲譽的不可估量性。對于陪審團的任何質(zhì)疑都必須把找出事實真相的方法不性考慮進去。同時也要記住陪審團的裁決是不會成為先例的。
陪審團的第二種形式是大陪審團。與小陪審團不同，大陪審團無須裁決是否有罪，它的主要功能是起訴。當犯罪嫌疑人被帶到法官面前時，法官就認為該犯罪嫌疑人可能有罪，關鍵是大陪審團如何調(diào)查。如果大陪審團能提供足夠的證據(jù)認定該犯罪嫌疑人有罪，它就可以簽署正式起訴書，然后著手審理。如果大陪審團無法提供足夠的證據(jù)，該案件就會被駁回。有時，大陪審團會被委任調(diào)查某些人或某些政府官員可能犯的罪行，然后提出控告。在英國和美國的約一半的州，大陪審團制度已被取消。然而，它的存在是為了保障憲法在聯(lián)邦案件中的實施。
陪審團的兩種形式都符合弗里德里克。梅特蘭多年前給出的一個經(jīng)典定義：陪審團是由一名公職官員召集起來，發(fā)誓要如實回答問題的人組成的機構。小陪審團要回答是否有罪、是否需要負責等問題，大陪審團要回答是否有足夠證據(jù)起訴的問題。這兩種形式的陪審團不僅符合這個定義，而且畢竟在遙遠的過去起源也一致。
陪審團的起源可追溯到一千多年前的英國加洛林王朝時期。作為成功統(tǒng)一疆土的一部分，這些君主們發(fā)展了一套審訊程序來確定皇權的本質(zhì)和范圍。他們把鄉(xiāng)民們召集起來，詢問他們對于古老皇權的理解。然后，行政中心對查明的皇權予以采納。整個過程雖然沒有起訴、裁定及判決等，但是國家卻采取了審訊的形式從公民中獲取信息。
There are two types of juries. The first, the petit jury, is used in both civil and criminal cases. In civil cases its task is generally to determine liability to pay money damages； in criminal cases its task is to determine punishable guilt, and it usually does so with a minimum of criticism. There its position as a bulwark of liberty, a protector against executive oppression, and a mode of lessening the rigors of too-strict legislation is secure. In England, where the use of the civil jury has been greatly reduced by legislation, the criminal jury remains in its traditional form. It is a noteworthy fact, however, that the jury is not now and has never been required to be used in equity cases.
The civil jury, however, is subject to much criticism. It appears, sometimes, to be a means whereby individuals can obtain unjust judgements against corporate defendants, for the jury may tend to ally itself with the underdog. The jury is, in many instances, incompetent to handle involved testimony, particularly on technical matters. In this country, nevertheless, accusations of bias, incompetence, capriciousness, unpredictability, delay, and expense usually have gone unheeded.
The trial jury, to speak for the moment in its defense, is presented with a difficult task. It must reconstruct history. It must determine the facts of a past transaction. If its verdicts seem excessive, one must keep in mind the impossibility of determining the money value of such intangibles as pain and suffering or loss of reputation. Any criticism of the jury must also take into account possible alternative methods of finding facts. And in such deliberations it must not be forgotten that jury verdicts do not create precedents.
The second type of jury is the grand jury. It differs from the trial or petit jury in that it does not decide questions of guilt or innocence. Its function is accusatory. When a possible offender is brought before a magistrate, and the magistrate believes there is suspicion of guilt, the matter is presented to the grand jury for investigation. If the grand jury finds enough evidence to warrant a trial, it will issue a true bill of indictment5 and the case will proceed. If the evidence is insufficient, the case will be dismissed. On occasion, the grand jury is charged with a special commission to investigate specific types of possible criminal activity among the general population or among governmental officials, and such investigations may also result in indictments. The grand jury has been abolished in England and in approximately one-half of the states in the U. S. Its existence, however, is guaranteed by the Constitution in federal cases.
Both types of juries fit the classic definition given by Frederick Maitland6 many years ago： that a jury is a body of neighbors summoned under oath by a public official to answer questions. The trial jury answers the question of guilt or innocence, liability or nonliability； the grand jury determines whether there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal trial. Not only do these juries fit the same definition, but they derive, ultimately and in the distant past, from the same origins.
The foundation of the jury system goes back a thousand years to the French empire of the Carolingian kings. Those monarchs, as part of their successful attempt to unite their empire, developed a procedure called the inquest, or inquisition, to determine the nature and extent of royal rights. They called together the people of the countryside and required them to relate their understanding of the immemorial rights of the king. The rights being ascertained, they were adopted by the central administration. There was neither accusation, verdict, nor judgement in these proceedings, but the inquest fixed the right of the state to obtain information from its citizens.
譯文
不管褒貶，陪審團制度已有約700年的歷史了。我們的先輩們是如此的擁護這一制度，以至于我們可以毫不費力地在聯(lián)邦憲法和州憲法中找到它的蹤跡。
陪審團有兩種形式。第一種叫小陪審團，可用于審理民事和刑事案件。在審理民事案件中，它的主要任務是依責任程度的不同而裁定相應的損害賠償金；在審理刑事案件中，它的主要任務是裁定該判處何種罪行，并經(jīng)常會裁定至最低限度。因此，小陪審團制度有力地保障了自由，抵抗了行政壓制及減輕了立法的苛刻性。在英國，小陪審團制度在民事案件中的使用由于立法而大大減少，但在刑事案件中的使用卻沒有多大的改變。值得注意的是，陪審團制度已不再成為趨勢，而且也不能適用于衡平法中。
然而，民事陪審團制度正遭受非議。有時候，小陪審團制度顯得只是一種手段，因此由于陪審團多半同情處于弱勢的一方，個人常會在應付共同被告時受到不公正判決。多數(shù)情況下，陪審團對于復雜的證據(jù)無能為力，尤其是具有科技性的證據(jù)。不過在該國，對于陪審團的偏見、無能、反復無常、無預見性、辦事拖拉及費用昂貴等諸多不是通常都被忽視了。
小陪審團審理案件是一項相當復雜的工作。它必須重構歷史，推斷過去發(fā)生事件的細節(jié)。如果裁決看起來過分了，它就必須牢記遭受痛苦或損失聲譽的不可估量性。對于陪審團的任何質(zhì)疑都必須把找出事實真相的方法不性考慮進去。同時也要記住陪審團的裁決是不會成為先例的。
陪審團的第二種形式是大陪審團。與小陪審團不同，大陪審團無須裁決是否有罪，它的主要功能是起訴。當犯罪嫌疑人被帶到法官面前時，法官就認為該犯罪嫌疑人可能有罪，關鍵是大陪審團如何調(diào)查。如果大陪審團能提供足夠的證據(jù)認定該犯罪嫌疑人有罪，它就可以簽署正式起訴書，然后著手審理。如果大陪審團無法提供足夠的證據(jù)，該案件就會被駁回。有時，大陪審團會被委任調(diào)查某些人或某些政府官員可能犯的罪行，然后提出控告。在英國和美國的約一半的州，大陪審團制度已被取消。然而，它的存在是為了保障憲法在聯(lián)邦案件中的實施。
陪審團的兩種形式都符合弗里德里克。梅特蘭多年前給出的一個經(jīng)典定義：陪審團是由一名公職官員召集起來，發(fā)誓要如實回答問題的人組成的機構。小陪審團要回答是否有罪、是否需要負責等問題，大陪審團要回答是否有足夠證據(jù)起訴的問題。這兩種形式的陪審團不僅符合這個定義，而且畢竟在遙遠的過去起源也一致。
陪審團的起源可追溯到一千多年前的英國加洛林王朝時期。作為成功統(tǒng)一疆土的一部分，這些君主們發(fā)展了一套審訊程序來確定皇權的本質(zhì)和范圍。他們把鄉(xiāng)民們召集起來，詢問他們對于古老皇權的理解。然后，行政中心對查明的皇權予以采納。整個過程雖然沒有起訴、裁定及判決等，但是國家卻采取了審訊的形式從公民中獲取信息。