If an individual juror is discharged in NSW, the judge may allow the trial to continue with the remaining jurors, unless doing so would ‘give rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice’ – in which case the judge is bound to discharge the jury as a whole.

Failure to Appear You must report for jury service if you are qualified and you have not been excused or had your service postponed. Any person who fails to respond may be fined up to $1,500, incarcerated, or both.

It is important that citizens serve on juries and testify in courts because the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a trial by jury of their peers. Voting, taking part in government, being informed, helping your community, and respecting and protecting others rights.

These situations can include: The criminal defendant in the case is considered to be extremely dangerous, and may present a threat of retaliation against the jurors or their loved ones. The criminal defendant is known to have a history of intimidating, bribing, or harming jurors or their alternates.

In all court cases, juror information is presumed public unless the government can make a case otherwise. Typically, judges keep jurors anonymous if they might be subject to physical harm, intimidation or undue media attention.

They can last for weeks or months, attract intense media attention, expose jurors to physical threats and emotional stress, and force them into long periods of isolation, with only their fellow jurors and court personnel for company.

Why is it significant that the jurors do not have names? It conveys their unfamiliarity with each other. It allows the audience to focus on their characteristics. The author just couldn’t think of good names for them so he left them with numbers instead.

The participants in the proceeding (lawyers, defendant, judge) know you by your number (juror no. 1, 2, etc.), but there is no rule that says jurors have to be anonymous from other jurors.

What if I know someone involved in the trial? You may be excused if you know the person(s) on trial or people who might testify, and if your acquaintance would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial. The judge will ask you about that during the selection process.

A jury usually withheld names in order to remove any effects of names, castes etc into the process. Inside the jury room, the people are simply humans trying to impart justice. When two people swap names, it signifies a bond, especially if it is done after passing through an experience together.

In 12 Angry Men, courage is represented mostly by Juror 8, who stood alone in a supposed open-and-shut case and defended his ideas with evidence and reason. From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty.

Juror Seven is a conceited man. He is rushed from the start of the play, which gives us the sense that he finds himself far too important for jury duty.

Eventually, the twelve sit down and a vote is taken. All of the jurors vote “guilty,” except for the 8th Juror, who votes “not guilty,” which, due to the requirement of a unanimous jury, forces them to discuss the case. The jurors react violently against this dissenting vote.

why does juror 11 question juror 7 so closely about his willingness to change his vote? Juror 3 voted guilty because he wanted to get it over with. He also didn’t have enough courage to stand alone, nor was able to give facts to back up his reasoning for saying the boy was guilty.

When Juror 7 switches his vote to “Not guilty” because he had enough, the immigrant Juror 11 gets mad and humiliates Juror 7, telling him that he has no right to play like this with the man’s life. Juror 7 is shown to be just as vile and malicious as the racist Juror 10.

Near the end of the play, Juror 7 announces that he’s changing his vote to guilty, not because he believes the defendant might not be guilty, but because he has had enough and wants to go home.

Juror Seven is an impatient, sarcastic, and quick-tempered salesman. The fact that the defendant bought the switchblade that was used as the murder weapon on the same night as the murder of his father is all the evidence that Juror Seven needs to make his decision.

Juror 3 changed his vote after realizing that all of his anger toward the defendant was a direct result of his bad relationship with his son. Due to his change of vote from guilty to not guilty, Juror 3 shows growth in character and is therefore considered dynamic.

When Juror Three stands alone in his damnation of the defendant, he begs for Juror Four’s help to persuade the others, but Juror Four has changed his vote to ‘not guilty.

In the first vote, Juror 8 is the only one to vote not guilty. He does this not because he really feels that the defendant is necessarily innocent, but for another reason altogether. He votes not guilty because he feels that the group should discuss a case with such serious consequences before deciding.

the play is taking place in a jury room. it is also extremely hot in the jury room which causes the jurors’ tempers to be very short.

Juror 9 bases his argument as to why the man lied by saying he is the same man and can relate. Why does Juror 5 change his vote? the old man could not have ‘run’ and even if he walked over he couldn’t have made his way over to the door as fast as he claimed. Juror 8 makes a new discovery as to why the boy is innocent.

At one point, the angry Juror #3 picks up the knife on the table and pretends to stab Juror #8 with it. The other jurors get ready to jump at him, but he’s only pretending for the sake of showing how the kid could have stabbed his father.

Juror 5 Background Although he votes ‘guilty’ from the beginning, he passes when he is given the opportunity to explain why he thinks the defendant is guilty. Having grown up in the slums, he’s personally offended when Jurors Four and Ten make assumptions about people who live in certain neighborhoods.

The main thing we know about Juror #5 is that he grew up in a slum—and he’s not especially fond of people who think everyone who comes out of a slum is a thief or a murderer.

This action is an example of situational irony because right before this, Juror #3 says he is going to kill Juror #8, so it is ironic that he does not do that here.

Juror 3 said that whenever someone says this, they mean it. When Jurors 3 and 9 started arguing whether it was 15 or 20 seconds to get to his front door, Juror 3 contradicted himself. He said that half the time he was confused. Just before, he kept on saying how the old man was sure of himself.

Juror 5 provides information that discounts an important piece of testimony. What information does juror 5 provide? Is he qualified to speak as an expert? Why or why not?