Forms of reviewing the jury trial decision and its grounds in the USA

This article examines the forms of reviewing a jury trial decision and its grounds in the USA, which are largely affected by the peculiarities of the establishment and development of the American law system in general. It reveals the fundamentals of trial by jury and implementation of the right to appeal the judicial decision in courts of superior jurisdiction as stipulated in the US Constitution of 1787 and criminal procedure legislation of the country. At the federal level trial by jury is implemented in district courts which are considered to be courts of first instance and have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases. Their decisions can be appealed at courts of appeals; and the US Supreme Court has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts. Anyone convicted of a crime at jury trial has a right to appeal the judicial decision. Verdict of not guilty can not be appealed, since this would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment (''nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb''). The right to appeal is possessed by the defendant, his defender and attorney who takes part in the trial, but the scope of the realisation of this right differs. Generally, the grounds for appeal are stated in relevant legal acts as a list of particular cases. Thus, the federal attorney is entitled to file an appeal against the dismissal of the indictment (i.e. the cessation of judicial proceedings); setting a case for a new trial after the jury trial decision has been set aside by the judge (in case such a trial violates the principle of double jeopardy); the court decision on admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the individual's constitutional rights. The court system of different states in the country - despite the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over all of them - is not uniform, i.e. it can contain three-four and even more levels, so several instances can have appellate jurisdiction. Grounds for the setting aside of a jury trial decision are stated in generalised abstract terms, such as ''unsafe conviction", "significant legal error'', ''due process violation''. Precedents of earlier cases are seen as sources of law and are to be the grounds for setting aside (reviewing) of the decision in each particular case. Disagreement of a court of superior jurisdiction with the decision rendered by jury trial is not enough to set aside a judicial judgement: only ''fundamental'' violation of judicial proceedings and ''where the interests of justice so require'' is considered to be a ground for this.

Keywords

Authors

References