A familiar sight and concept in the American legal process is that of a jury. It is one of the fundamental rights of every American that, no matter what they have done, if they are going to court to determine innocence, guilt, or financial responsibility, there is a group of peers making the decision. The founders of our country realized generations ago just how unfair it was to give people in authority the sole discretion to decide whether a person should be punished or not, and so our legal system, with a jury trial, was born.
But while the idea of a jury overseeing a criminal trial is well known, the jury can also preside over a civil case. This means that in event you decide to undertake a lawsuit—or find yourself on notice that a lawsuit is being filed against you—a jury decision still applies. And that means that each lawyer must make the argument to average Americans, just like yourself, who will then decide whether a lawsuit is valid or not.
However, unlike a criminal trial, a jury for a civil trial, while normal, is not actually mandatory.
Too Small & Fast
In the case of small claims courts, for figures under $5000, for instance, not only is there no jury, but in the majority of cases, there are no lawyers present either. Small claims cases involve such minor amounts of money, and are usually resolved in such a short amount of time that there’s often no need for either a lawyer, or a jury to adjourn, debate the merits of a case, and return with their decision. When someone is seeking a refund on a poor service at a restaurant, for example, this case can often be resolved in a matter of minutes if it even gets as far as small claims court.
In Lawsuits
However, once we start looking at much more financially significant cases, such as a personal injury lawsuit, this is where the privilege of having a jury-presided trial once again is offered. It is not, however, an absolute requirement. In fact, if all clients and lawyers involved in a lawsuit agree to it, it is possible for a lawsuit to take place without a jury present, and instead have the ruling determined by a judge.
There are both pros and cons to having trials by jury versus trials by judges. On the one hand, a trial run by a judge may get faster resolution, as there is no jury selection required, no opening arguments that need to be made to a jury and no strict procedural rules that need to be followed for the sake of the jury. All arguments are made directly to the judge.
On the other hand, this often means that if there is an emotional component to your case, such the sympathy elicited for your injuries, or the effect this will have on your children, that empathetic advantage is often absent without a jury. Cases with less emphasis on legal components are often better conducted with juries. Whether to have a trial with a jury or not is something that you and your St. Pete lawyer will need to discuss as you formulate your strategy for your lawsuit.
