陪审团的无奈——从辛普森案看美国陪审制度的缺陷

第1篇摘要：辛普森案件是美国历史上最具争议和影响力的刑事案件之一。

案件涉及法律程序、证据标准、种族关系等多个方面，引发了广泛的讨论和反思。

本文将从辛普森案件出发，探讨其中的法律启示，包括证据标准、程序正义、种族关系等，以期为我国法律实践提供借鉴。

一、引言1994年6月12日，美国著名橄榄球运动员、电视名人奥兰多·琼斯在洛杉矶的一所公寓内被杀害。

经过调查，警方认定辛普森是凶手。

然而，在1995年的审判中，辛普森被判无罪。

这一案件引发了全球范围内的关注和讨论，成为了法律史上的一个重要案例。

本文将从辛普森案件出发，探讨其中的法律启示。

二、证据标准1. 证据的证明力辛普森案件中的证据包括DNA证据、目击证人证言、物证等。

然而，在审判过程中，法官和陪审团对于证据的证明力产生了分歧。

这表明，在刑事案件中，证据的证明力是一个重要的考量因素。

对于证据的证明力，我国《刑事诉讼法》也有明确规定，要求证据必须充分、确实、有证明力。

2. 证据的排除规则在辛普森案件中，部分证据因程序违法被排除。

这反映了证据排除规则在刑事司法中的重要性。

我国《刑事诉讼法》也规定了证据排除规则，旨在保障被告人的合法权益，防止冤假错案的发生。

三、程序正义1. 陪审团制度辛普森案件采用了陪审团制度。

这一制度在保障程序正义方面具有重要意义。

然而，陪审团制度也存在一定的问题，如陪审员素质参差不齐、可能受到舆论影响等。

我国在借鉴陪审团制度时，应充分考虑这些问题，不断完善相关制度。

2. 公开审判辛普森案件的审判过程公开透明，这有助于保障程序正义。

我国《刑事诉讼法》也规定了公开审判原则，要求人民法院审理案件，除涉及国家秘密、个人隐私或者商业秘密外，应当公开进行。

公开审判有助于提高司法公信力，保障当事人的合法权益。

四、种族关系1. 种族歧视辛普森案件涉及到种族歧视问题。

在审判过程中，部分陪审员和公众对辛普森的种族背景产生了偏见，影响了案件的公正审理。

浅析美国陪审团制度利弊陪审团制度是美国司法体系中特有的制度，是美国民主政治在司法方面的体现。

不同于其他国家的由法律专业人士定罪的制度，美国的陪审团制度旨在赋予普通公民决定司法公正的权力，避免政府公权力一家独大。

然而，轰动一时的辛普森案件中民事审判和刑事审判中截然不同的判决，又让人们不得不重新审视这种看似合理的审判制度背后的利与弊。

1.美国陪审团制度概况与其政治意义美国的陪审制度起源于英国殖民统治时期，但它具有鲜明的美国民主性质。

不同于英国的陪审制中只从贵族阶层挑选陪审员的规定。

1在美国，只要是有选举权的，无犯罪前科的公民，就可以参选陪审员。

陪审制在美国司法体制中的地位非比寻常，一是因为其本身被写入宪法修正案，不得轻易改动；二是美国人普遍认为陪审制可以有效避免法官独断专横，政府滥用公权力。

例如在政府与公民发生纠纷的案件中，陪审团大多倾向于保护公民。

陪审团是表达公民意识，帮助公民对抗公权力的重要途径。

法国历史社会学家托克维尔认为，美国陪审团制度不仅是一种司法制度，更是一种具有民主特性的政治制度。

他说：“法律只要不以民情为基础，就总要处于不稳定的状态。

民情是一个民族唯一坚强耐久的意见。

”通过陪审团制度，美国司法可以把具备法律专业素养的法官意识和代表民情的陪审团意见结合起来。

确保司法程序的公正。

2美国司法审判中实行抗辩式制度，在审判过程中，原被告双方平等，法官和陪审团实际处于中立地位。

为防止法官利用公权力独裁，因而设立陪审团，分割部分判决权；同样，为了限制检察官和警察的权力，可以组成23人的大陪审团。

在诉讼过程中，法官、陪审员独立进行判决。

在有重大社会影响力的案件中，为防止社会舆论影响陪审团判决，可以选择隔离陪审团。

在判决过程中，陪审团通过表决，意见统一后决定被告是否有罪，而法官决定具体量刑。

32.从贺梅案看被告人获取陪审团审理的权利美国宪法规定，所有刑事诉讼案件中，被告有权利要求案件发生地之州及区的陪审团迅1 书名: 《西方法律史》作者: 何勤华贺卫方主编第:97页2 书名: 《流年物语：西方近现代文明的哲思》作者: 胡伟希著第:60页3 书名: 《检察官境外培训成果文丛（第一卷）》作者: 王少峰主编第:38页速开庭审理。

第1篇一、案件背景1994年6月12日，美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶市的著名橄榄球运动员奥兰多·詹姆斯·辛普森的前妻尼科尔·布朗·辛普森和她的朋友罗纳德·高德曼在一场血腥的袭击中丧生。

这起案件引起了全世界的广泛关注，因为辛普森是当时的体育明星，拥有大量的粉丝。

在案件审理过程中，辛普森被控一级谋杀罪，然而，经过长达三个月的审理，陪审团最终宣判辛普森无罪。

二、案件审理过程1. 初审阶段在初审阶段，辛普森的律师团队采取了“证据排除”的策略，即通过各种手段排除控方证据，以证明辛普森的无罪。

在这个过程中，律师团队成功地使陪审团相信，警方在现场收集的证据存在重大瑕疵，无法证明辛普森的犯罪行为。

2. 重审阶段在初审结束后，控方对案件进行了重审。

在重审阶段，辛普森的律师团队再次采取“证据排除”的策略，并成功地使陪审团相信，警方在现场收集的证据存在重大瑕疵。

此外，律师团队还通过心理战术，使陪审团对辛普森产生同情。

3. 陪审团审理在案件审理过程中，陪审团的作用至关重要。

根据美国法律，陪审团需要独立、公正地审理案件，并作出裁决。

然而，在辛普森案中，陪审团成员的背景和偏见对案件审理产生了重大影响。

部分陪审团成员对辛普森的体育成就表示敬佩，认为他是一位好人，因此在审理过程中对辛普森产生了同情。

三、案件评价1. 案件审理程序公正尽管辛普森案最终宣判辛普森无罪，但案件的审理程序是公正的。

在美国，陪审团制度是一项重要的司法制度，旨在保障被告人的合法权益。

在辛普森案中，陪审团成员经过严格的选拔，确保了案件的公正审理。

2. 证据排除策略有效辛普森案的审理过程中，律师团队采取的“证据排除”策略取得了显著成效。

通过排除警方在现场收集的证据，律师团队成功地使陪审团相信，辛普森的无罪。

这一策略在美国法律实践中具有普遍意义，为被告人提供了有效的辩护手段。

3. 案件影响深远辛普森案在美国乃至全球范围内产生了深远的影响。

第1篇一、引言1994年，美国发生了一起震惊世界的案件——辛普森案件。

此案不仅涉及一起命案，更揭示了美国法律体系的诸多问题。

案件发生后，人们纷纷对美国的法律制度进行反思，探讨法律的公正性、证据的证明力、程序正义等问题。

本文将从辛普森案件出发，探讨其对法律的感悟。

二、案件背景1994年6月12日，美国洛杉矶一名白人妇女尼科尔·布朗和她的朋友罗纳德·高德曼在辛普森家中遭到杀害。

警方在辛普森家中发现大量血迹，并认定辛普森有重大作案嫌疑。

随后，辛普森被警方逮捕，并被控以两项一级谋杀罪名。

在案件审理过程中，辛普森的律师团队运用了一系列法律手段，包括对证据的质疑、对证人的交叉审问等，最终使得辛普森在1995年10月被陪审团宣判无罪。

这一结果引发了公众的广泛质疑和不满，甚至引发了种族冲突。

三、案件对法律的感悟1. 证据的重要性辛普森案件让人们深刻认识到证据在刑事诉讼中的重要性。

在案件审理过程中，辛普森的律师团队对证据进行了严格的审查，甚至提出了质疑。

这表明，在刑事诉讼中，证据的证明力是至关重要的。

只有确凿的证据才能保证案件的公正审理。

2. 证明标准辛普森案件暴露了美国刑事诉讼中证明标准的问题。

在美国，刑事诉讼的证明标准是“超出合理怀疑”，这意味着控方需要提供充分的证据，使得陪审团对被告人的有罪指控没有合理的怀疑。

然而，在辛普森案件中，尽管警方收集了大量证据，但仍然无法达到“超出合理怀疑”的标准，导致辛普森被宣判无罪。

3. 程序正义辛普森案件引发了人们对程序正义的思考。

在案件审理过程中，辛普森的律师团队运用了一系列法律手段，包括对证据的质疑、对证人的交叉审问等，最终使得辛普森被宣判无罪。

这表明，程序正义在刑事诉讼中具有重要意义。

只有保证程序的公正，才能保证案件审理的公正。

4. 种族歧视辛普森案件也揭示了美国法律体系中的种族歧视问题。

在案件审理过程中，陪审团由12名白人和一名黑人组成。

尽管辛普森是黑人，但陪审团最终宣判他无罪。

第1篇一、背景1994年6月12日，美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶市的白人警察罗纳德·金（Ronald Goldman）和罗纳德·莱沃恩（Ronald Lyle LeB Laud）在一家夜总会外遭到枪击，两人均不幸身亡。

警方经过调查，将涉嫌谋杀的嫌疑人定为美国著名橄榄球运动员奥兰多·詹姆斯·辛普森（O.J. Simpson）。

二、案件过程1. 初审1994年6月17日，辛普森被捕。

经过初步审讯，辛普森否认犯罪。

在初审阶段，陪审团主要由黑人组成，这在一定程度上对辛普森有利。

2. 开庭审理1995年1月，辛普森案正式开庭审理。

在审理过程中，辛普森律师团提出了多项质疑，包括证据不足、警方执法不当等。

此外，律师团还强调辛普森在案发当晚有不在场证明。

3. 容情因素（1）种族因素：辛普森是一名黑人，而受害者罗纳德·金是一名白人。

在当时的美国社会背景下，种族歧视和偏见依然存在。

辛普森的律师团利用这一点，试图降低陪审团对辛普森的偏见。

（2）名人效应：辛普森作为美国著名的橄榄球运动员，拥有庞大的粉丝群体。

他的律师团利用这一点，试图通过舆论引导，使陪审团对辛普森产生同情。

（3）证据不足：在审理过程中，律师团指出警方提供的证据存在诸多疑点，如弹道学证据、DNA证据等。

这些疑点使得陪审团对辛普森的罪行产生怀疑。

三、判决结果1995年10月3日，陪审团经过13个小时的讨论，最终宣布辛普森无罪。

这一判决震惊了美国社会，引起了广泛的争议。

四、法律容情分析1. 种族因素在辛普森案中，种族因素起到了关键作用。

尽管证据表明辛普森有罪，但由于陪审团中黑人比例较高，他们可能受到了种族偏见的影响，对辛普森产生同情。

2. 名人效应辛普森作为名人，拥有庞大的粉丝群体。

他的律师团利用这一点，通过舆论引导，使陪审团对辛普森产生同情，从而影响了案件的审理结果。

3. 证据不足在审理过程中，律师团成功指出警方提供的证据存在诸多疑点。

第1篇一、引言1994年，美国发生了一起震惊全球的谋杀案——辛普森谋杀案。

在这起案件中，著名橄榄球运动员奥詹·辛普森被控谋杀了他的前妻妮可·布朗·辛普森和她的朋友罗纳德·戈德曼。

经过长达几个月的审理，最终辛普森被判无罪释放。

这一结果引发了全球范围内的争议和讨论，特别是关于法律证据、警察调查和种族歧视等方面的问题。

本文将从法律角度对辛普森案例进行分析，探讨其中的法律问题及看法。

二、案件背景1. 犯罪事实1994年6月12日，妮可·布朗·辛普森和罗纳德·戈德曼在洛杉矶的一处公寓内被谋杀。

警方在现场找到了凶器——一把血迹斑斑的刀，并在辛普森的汽车内找到了同样的血迹。

随后，警方对辛普森进行了逮捕。

2. 被告辩护辛普森在法庭上辩称自己是无辜的，声称自己是在凌晨时分被一名黑人和一名白人男子绑架，并被逼到案发现场。

此外，辛普森的律师团队还质疑了警方调查和证据的真实性。

三、法律问题及看法1. 证据问题（1）血迹证据在辛普森案中，血迹证据是警方指控辛普森的主要证据。

然而，法医专家在鉴定血迹时发现，血迹中的DNA与辛普森的DNA并不匹配。

这引发了人们对血迹证据真实性的质疑。

看法：血迹证据是案件中的重要证据，但在鉴定过程中出现错误，可能导致案件结果的偏差。

因此，在处理类似案件时，必须确保证据的准确性和可靠性。

（2）指纹证据在案件审理过程中，警方提供了辛普森在案发现场留下的指纹。

然而，辛普森的律师团队指出，这些指纹可能是被伪造的。

看法：指纹证据在案件中具有重要地位，但在审理过程中，如果出现指纹被伪造的情况，将严重影响案件的公正性。

因此，在处理类似案件时，应加强对指纹证据的审查。

2. 警察调查问题（1）种族歧视在辛普森案中，警方在调查过程中存在种族歧视现象。

据报道，警方在调查过程中对黑人嫌疑人进行了更加严厉的审讯，而对白人嫌疑人则较为宽容。

看法：种族歧视是法律制度中的一大弊端，严重影响案件的公正性。

第1篇一、引言1994年，美国发生了一起震惊世界的谋杀案——尼科尔·布朗和罗纳德·戈德曼被谋杀。

凶手身份一度成谜，直到一年后，前橄榄球运动员奥兰多·约翰·辛普森被控谋杀两人。

然而，经过长达三个月的审判，辛普森最终被判无罪。

这一案件引发了全球范围内对法律问题的广泛讨论。

本文将从辛普森案件中的法律问题出发，探讨案件背后的法律争议。

二、辛普森案件中的法律问题1. 证据问题辛普森案件中的证据问题备受争议。

在审判过程中，警方提取了大量的物证，如血迹、毛发、指纹等。

然而，这些证据在法庭上却存在诸多问题。

首先，部分证据在提取过程中可能存在污染，导致无法准确判断。

其次，部分证据的来源不明，如部分血迹被证实并非来自案发现场。

最后，部分证据的鉴定过程存在问题，如指纹鉴定专家被指控存在造假行为。

2. 证人证言问题在辛普森案件中，证人证言同样存在诸多问题。

部分证人因受到压力或威胁，未能提供真实证言。

例如，目击者科琳·科弗利在庭审过程中承认，曾因被威胁而改变证词。

此外，部分证人因与辛普森有利害关系，对辛普森存在偏见，导致其证言可信度降低。

3. 法律程序问题辛普森案件中的法律程序也存在诸多争议。

首先，警方在侦查过程中存在侵犯公民权利的行为，如非法搜查、监听等。

其次，法庭在审理过程中未能充分保障被告人的辩护权。

例如，辛普森的律师团队在审判过程中多次提出证据存在问题，但法庭并未给予足够重视。

4. 种族歧视问题辛普森案件中的种族歧视问题备受关注。

辛普森是一位黑人，而受害者尼科尔·布朗和罗纳德·戈德曼均为白人。

在审判过程中，部分媒体和民众对辛普森存在种族歧视，认为其因种族背景而获得无罪判决。

此外，法庭在审理过程中也存在种族歧视倾向，如部分法官和陪审员在庭审过程中表现出对辛普森的偏见。

5. 新闻媒体的影响辛普森案件中的新闻媒体影响不容忽视。

在审判过程中，媒体对辛普森进行了大量负面报道，导致公众对辛普森产生偏见。

陪审团的无奈——从辛普森案看美国陪审制度的缺陷（The frustration of jury -- the defects of American jury system fromSimpson's case）The "trial of the century" although almost 10 years have passed, but a series of story elements in the Simpson case is still attracting our attention: intermarriage, love, lust and lies, hatred, fame, wealth, beauty, possession, obsession, spouse abuse, child, heart attack, the most cruel knife the attack and all that money can buy "justice", like the fireworks exploded in front of people. The different criminal and civil proceedings have surprised many people, shocked and incomprehensible. Many people spontaneously produce doubt: since the civil award is Simpson of the two victims of the death and have the responsibility to bear huge compensation to the families of victims, this shows that Simpson did kill people; and since he killed a man, why can he never escape criminal punishment? On the contrary, since the criminal verdict is not guilty, why does the civil verdict decide that he is responsible and that he should pay a large sum of money? Aren't these two decisions self contradictory?But in the analysis of the trial process and the judicial system of the United States, we can say that, in any case, the two kinds of criminal and criminal proceedings are made in accordance with legal procedures, and they are logical and reasonable. As far as the result is concerned, it depends on many factors, such as the constitution of the United States, the legal system and the social environment. That responsibility of civil and criminal litigation in different criminal proceedings, and enjoy different defendants and civil litigation rights of thedefendant, the court of criminal litigation and civil litigation, has exerted great influence on the different results. But in this case, the most direct and fundamental cause of the two judges' differences is that the criminal and civil judgments are made up of two different jurors. Jeffrey Abramson Professor, as the "jury system" of the book said: "the case of criminal and civil litigation in all of the differences are due to the two action group's ethnic composition and inferior no confusion. Two juries, two societies, two codes of justice."In the following, this article will start with the jury of Simpson case to analyze the phenomena and problems existing in the jury system in America today.The guarantee of jury trial. All offences, except for impeachment, shall be tried by jury,......- third articles of the United States Constitution, second items, eleventh paragraphsIn all criminal proceedings, the defendant shall be entitled to the following powers:1. A speedy and open trial by a fair jury in a crime state or region shall be determined by law first....... - the sixth amendment to the United States ConstitutionJury trial of seventh civil actions.In an ordinary law suit, the party has the right to request ajury trial if the object of action is valued at more than 20 dollars. The facts of any trial by jury shall not be retried by any court in the United States except in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary law.- the Seventh Amendment to the United States ConstitutionOne of the defects: the racial bias of the juror has a decisive effect on the outcome of the caseThe above provisions of the United States Constitution and its amendment establish the jury system in criminal and civil proceedings, and guarantee the defendant's right to a fair jury trial. Since the constitution regards the right to jury trial as a basic civil right, the jury is far from a symbol of justice in the United States, but a symbol of democracy. Ordinary men and women who judge the same people as they are considered to represent the ideals of which they share the form of democracy with the government. The premise of being a juror is that he (she) must be impartial and objective, and there is no prejudice or guilt against the accused before the trial. Since the jury has an independent review of the case and is not interfered with by anyone including the judge, the judge can only decide in accordance with the jury's decision. If the jury finds the defendant innocent, the accused will be released in court. The new evidence to prove the defendant guilty found even after, the defendant will not be in the trial, because the United States law stipulates that "no person shall for the same offence, accept two life or physical harm." The way, especially in criminal litigation, the jury selection became the prosecution and defense strategist "a hotly contested spot".In Simpson's case, lawyers in both sides of the criminal trial spared no effort in selecting jurors, hoping to select people who would benefit themselves. Because Simpson is a famous black rugby player, looks handsome, though humble but rely on their own struggle and fabulous fortune, deep black, American football fans and people's love and worship; Nichol is a beautiful white woman. In that case, Simpson's lawyers hope to select jurors who are ethnic, male, low educated, keen on rugby, adore stars, and emotional;The public prosecutor wants to try to pick white, female, best domestic violence, unhappy experiences, and jurors who are not in favor of the rich. After a long dispute, the 12 jurors finally decided. The situation for the 12 is as follows:1. black women, 50. As a peddler, she was shocked and depressed when she claimed to have heard Simpson at first". She said that she respected Mr. Simpson because of "achievement from the day after tomorrow".2. black women, 25. She is a flight attendant and occasionally plays on television.3. man, 52 years old, with both American Indian and Irish ancestry. "He's an amphibious driver, and he calls me violence between parents," he told me". "Simpson is my hero," he said".4. South American male, 32 years old. He was a truck driver and talked about Simpson. "If he did it, I couldn't understand the reason.". This is tantamount to death."5. black women, 37. She was a postman, claiming that when she heard that Simpson had been charged with a crime, she wondered why he would do so.6. black men, 48. He is a German car hire employees, Simpson had advertised for the car. When he heard that Simpson was a suspect, he said, "he just couldn't believe it."".7. black women, 38. She is an employed interviewer, claiming to avoid talking about the case.8. black women, 38. She was an environmental expert, her father was a police officer, and she wanted to be a lawyer.9. black women, 52. She was a shop assistant who had seen on television the chase of Simpson and police on the southern California highway in June 17th.10. South American women, 38. She is a mail carrier, claiming to have been abused by her boyfriend.11. white women, 22. She was an insurance applicant, claiming her mother had been beaten by her father, and when she was a baby, her father left home.12. black men, 46. He was a courier, claiming if Simpson committed this crime, he will be "very surprised". 6Of the 12, 8 were black, 2 were from South America, and 1 were Indians, with only 1 whites and only 22 year old young women.Among the 12, 8 were women, 4 were men, and most of the cultural level and profession were general staff and workers without higher education. The jury's constitution was clearly in line with the defence's ideal, and many even felt that Simpson had won the case the day the jury was seated. In this composition, there are at least two factors that we must pay attention to.First, racial factors. Racial conflict has been an important social issue in the United states. Severe racial riots broke out in the United States in 1992. In this purely white place, and the defendant is black jury trial, the subjective tendency is self-evident. But in this case the prosecution's witness to the black white detective Fuhrman called "nigger" habit and the fact that the jury to deny, and all the evidence involved are suspect. The "race card" became a winning card in the critical moments of the lawsuit that affected the jury's emotions and perceptions. After the trial, the Paris tabloid reported: "the ruling shows that the United States is merely a mixture of national and racial groups, each of which belongs to its own group.". Such comments may be too extreme, but everyone acknowledges that racism has always been a negligible factor in the Simpson case.Is it true that the overwhelming majority of the black people in the jury are good for the defense? Then, can the majority of women be considered to be in the interests of the prosecution? In fact, the plaintiff has a serious miscalculation in jury selection: they think that because of the problem of domestic violence, black women can sympathize with Nichol. But in fact, the cry of Nichol Simpson in the 911 phone call was not as shocking to blacks as it was to the dialogue. A married WhiteAfrican woman to "sleep" - Documentary jury trial a contemporary American author Dominic? Dunn mentioned in the letter: "I think Simpson is not guilty; my husband thinks he is guilty. In our 8 year marriage, this is the only disagreement we have on racial issues. I don't think you, like my husband, can understand the anger of a black man like a black man. For us, the shock of a black man's roar is different from the shock in the white community. Sometimes yelling is accompanied by violence, but more often there is no violence. It's rare to kill people. So, to black people, Simpson's anger doesn't make us believe he's guilty." Thus, in this case,The issue of women has been weakened by racial issues, and the prosecution's "gender card" apparently lost to the defense's "race card"".Another factor is the influence of Simpson himself. From the above 12 jurors for the description, in 12, there were 6 people claiming to "respect Simpson, said Xin" My Hero ", the wife said" I do not believe will xin". This objective "star effect" makes it almost impossible for everyone to be equal before the law. If the defendant is just an ordinary citizen, without 50% of the jurors in advance of his obvious favor, then the outcome of the trial will be how? As the famous American sociologist Donald? Black pointed out: "when a favorable factors because of superior social status due to the overwhelming party each other's social advantage, the favorable factors basically displayed; and when any adverse factors caused by the low social position. One of the parties in the social disadvantage, these adverse factors will basically show out. In other words, the amount of law varies with the social status of the parties."7A very different case arises in civil proceedings. The civil trial was conducted in the Santa Monica court dominated by white people, consisting of 9 whites, 1 Hispanics, 1 Asian Americans and 1 blacks and hispanics. The jury, without a purely black jury, agreed that Simpson was responsible for the death of the dead in the case that only 12 of the 9 people in the wanted the defendant to be liable for the case in California.Visible, although has taken a series of measures (such as pre screening, absolute avoidance, isolation trial) to prevent the non legal factors of unfair interference on the jury, but as long as the jury system exists, we are unable to provide a mechanism to ensure the effect of the jury is absolutely not subject to racism or other prejudice of the.Two: "knot defect jury" waste of litigation resourcesIn October 2, 1995, Simpson withdrew after the jury case, prosecutors, criminal justice experts, there are hundreds of millions of television viewers across the United States are guessing, and not to utter a single word in the whole course of the trial deadpan jury will have a lasting several days or even weeks to discuss the review process. Black jurors will adhere to Simpson's innocence, white jurors will stick to its guilty, may finally be deadlocked, into a "jury deadlock". But, contrary to everyone's expectation, the jury completed the deliberations and rulings in 4 hours. The morning of October 3rd 10, when the court clerk, Ms. Robertson read "the jury verdict aolunduo? James? Simpson innocence", the silence of theAmerican boiling. It was reported that almost all blacks cheered at the same moment, while white people were furious.Although the jury of Simpson's case is not high in cultural level, they are all "laymen" of law, but they make decisions on the basis of "heaven and earth conscience". It should be said that they still fulfill their obligations perfectly. In the long course of the trial, they fully understand and grasp the evidence of "no doubt" principle and the principle of "presumption of innocence", more importantly, they don't make you a "knot jury" or "hung jury".In the United States, juries find guilty or not guilty, and the laws of the states do not. Some (such as the California of Losangeles) stipulated that the 12 people should all agree. If one person sticks to different opinions, the other 11 can not reach the verdict with the minority to the majority. In such a case, the jury will be dissolved and the court proceedings will be invalid. If the prosecutor Sue again, there must be new evidence; some have to be based on the majority of jurors' decisions. If the jury fails to reach the agreed unanimity or majority of consent, the jury passes the message to the judge that they can not make a ruling. In general, judges will urge them to continue their efforts to make decisions without putting too much pressure on them. If the jury made sincere efforts, still cannot reconcile differences of opinion, is what we call the "knot jury, the judge only announced the pending decision. After the outstanding jury leads to a pending judgment, the defendant may ask the judge to declare the defendant innocent. If the motion is rejected, the prosecutor may ask for a trial, or do not think it is worth the troubleagain, and demand the dismissal of the accusation. 8In the actual judicial trial, this "knot jury" is the existence of a large number of. Before the assassination of Simpson, a U.S. Menendez brothers kinslaying case appeared in this situation. Even the once rich Menendez brothers have confessed toward their parents face, head and body to play so many rounds, the trial of the two jury but is not issued a ruling, and become the "knot of the jury".This shilly-shally makes many people confused, and to the entire national judicial doubt.The jury deadlock, litigation delay process, increase the cost of litigation; taxpayers' money has been spent, but the outcome of the case still seems elusive; on the other hand, jurors are in anguish, long time to be isolated, there is no freedom of action. The endless delays and repetition of the proceedings have made it difficult to seek a fair trial. We can not help asking, if the cost of the implementation of a system is too high, so that the implementation of the results deviated from the original intention of setting up the system, how reasonable is the system?Three of the defects: evasion of jury dutyIn the United States, it is civil duty to serve as a juror.No one denies that this obligation is onerous in a long trial like the Simpson case. Throughout the trial, the lives of isolated jurors were difficult. They were separated from theirfamilies, friends and work, and were told several times a day that they were not allowed to talk about their only topic of conversation. The pre recorded television programs were monitored by the assistants, and all the reports on the trial in the newspaper were cut off. In July 10, 1995, Simpson's "dream team" to "the defendant in the trial before the main lawsuit jurors have been isolated for about 200 days, and this isolation also must continue until the end of the proceedings.The pain of isolation coupled with the meagre pay makes it a difficult job to select jurors. With the increase of the number of jurors in criminal trials, the evasion of candidates is becoming more and more serious. According to statistics, the United States received the jury candidate notice personnel only about half of the people on time and to be selected to appear in court; these people are still a lot of people when answering the questions, deliberately said he can't rightly in the case of the trial, in order to avoid jury duty.Professor He Jiahong described the jury selection process at the Chicago Criminal Court in 1990, in the article "embarrassment of jury obligations". It was a trial of a police officer with bullet wounds, so the judge's questions to the candidate were mostly about the police. When the judge asked a more than 40 year old middle-aged man, the answer was surprising.The judge asked, "are you prejudiced against the police?"""Yes."!"The judge was probably mentally ill prepared for such a forthright answer, so he paused for a moment and asked, "can you guarantee yourself a fair decision on the case?"""No!"!""Why?"""This is personal privacy." The man was ready for that. The judge hesitated, but announced that he was unfit for the jury of the case. The man walked out of court without delight. 9The judges have a bad headache for such cunning jurors, but there is no good way to stop them.In fact, the jury was regarded as a right of the American citizen, and later became an obligation because of the increasing number of people who gave up the right. But relative to the jury system of the first two defects, this problem is still relatively easy to solve. As long as the jurors' pay is higher than the average income of the Americans, there will naturally be a lot of people asking for the initiative. This is also the role of the law of value.In combination with the above observations, the jury system of such guarantees is subject to trial by the same kind of people. It is the publicity of democracy in the judicial field. In the Simpson case, the jury played its most important role and became the key to deciding the outcome of the case. But under the influence of the above-mentioned jury system, the Democratic trial is easy to deviate from the impartial direction.Democracy and justice, which is more important? How to pursue the substantive justice under the premise of democracy is the direction of self perfection and improvement of the jury system.The Yuzhen Xu Liu Xiaonan: "Jurisprudence Thinking" Simpson alleged murder case, contained in the "Hebei law" in 1999 the first phase, eighth pages.The criminal procedure law pursues the principle of "presumption of innocence", to "guilty must exclude any reasonable doubt", while civil judgment based on the "preponderance of evidence" (preponderance of the evidence) the burden of proof, the plaintiff only need to provide evidence to the jury that the possibility of Simpson responsible for the death of the victim is not greater than the possibility of responsible.In criminal proceedings, the defendant has the right to silence, and the jury can not make a negative inference for it. In civil proceedings, the defendant must provide evidence of proof to deny the plaintiff's claim.See Frank, Chen Weidong, Xu Meijun: Proceedings of the U.S. criminal court, Renmin University of China press, 2002, 508th.The fifth amendment to the federal constitution amendment, second principles of "one crime, two penalties".The king Master Ceng Yuexing: "American justice demands the Simpson case and Du Peiwu case China comparison", Law Press,2003 edition, page 145-146 article.See the [America] Donald? Black "Introduction" judicial sociology, "foreign law" on 1996 second.We see [America] Allan? Frank, Chen Weidong, Xu Meijun: "the United States criminal court proceedings", Renmin University of China press, 2002 edition, page 508th.He Jiahong: "I woke up crazy extraterritorial recorded" (Second Edition), Law Press, December 2002 second edition, pp. 257-258.。

陪审团利弊分析整理版一、辛普森案件中陪审团的缺陷1、陪审团的种族构成可能产生偏见就陪审员的遴选而言，美国最高法院规定当事人双方律师不得由于种族、性别或者其他歧视因素提出无因回避。

辛普森案中12名陪审员在最后进入审判评议阶段时竟有9名是黑人，这是法律规定无法规避的事实，因为制度本身就为种族主义留有了生长的空隙。

而从整个案件的审判来看，陪审团的成员成分与案件的最终审判结果也具有极大的关联性。

辛普森案的首席辩护律师在最后一轮辩论中正是针对陪审团的成员成分适时地打出了种族“王牌”，致使辛普森案有了出人意料的判决。

据判决前的一项问卷调查，74%的白人认为被告有罪，而77%的黑人则认为无罪，很显然，种族因素影响了公民对于案件的认识。

2、关于陪审团的效率问题美国陪审团制度从陪审员遴选到参与审判所耗费的成本太高，效率太低。

以下即为辛普森案件的数据档案①:a、辛普森被羁押时间为:472天。

B、洛杉矶政府检控开支为:900万美元。

c、被告辩护律师开支超过900万美元。

d、证人数目:控方72人，辩方54人。

e、证词页数:5万。

f、物证数目1115件:控方723件，辩方392件。

g、呈交物证时间:控方99日，辩方34日。

h、陪审团隔离时间:263日(每人日薪5美元)。

早在1980年，美国一个研究机构就曾做出一项评估:陪审团审判中所产生的额外行政负担，就联邦法院的侵权案件而言，平均的费用已从过去的每个案件1740美元，上升到15028美元。

到1993年，联邦法院陪审团的平均审理时间是5.19天，而法官独立审判的平均时间为2.34天;另一项纽约曼哈顿法院的研究表明陪审团审判花费的时间比法官审判花费的时间要多出大约40%。

所有的数据都一致表明，美国陪审团在审理案件上耗费太大，效率太低，这不仅给司法部门造成沉重的负担，也给诉讼双方以及陪审员本人带来时间和金钱上的浪费。

但在法律价值中，首先应强调的是公正价值，在保证公正价值的前提下才要兼顾到效率价值。