The accused must enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty to the charge

against him/her on the first day the matter is mentioned.

Where the person refuses to speak it must be determined if the accused is

mute by malice or mute by an Act of GoD.

It must also be clear that the person is not suffering from any mental issues

which render him/her unfit to enter a plea.

Jamaica has a plea bargaining process which forms a part of the Criminal

Case Management process aimed at dealing with matters quickly in the court

The sentencing guidelines provide for the accused to receive a credit

for entering a guilty plea at anytime before the verdict of the Court/

Jury is returned.

The earlier in the process the plea of guilty is entered, will result in

more time being removed from the sentence.

In the plea bargaining process, the accused is able to negotiate with

the prosecution on the terms of the sentence to be served or the

charge. Example- the accused may plea to a lesser charge or having a

charge removed from the indictment.

A jury is deemed to be an impartial and independent peer of the accused as is therefore a critical part of the

criminal justice system. In Jamaica, jury selection, role, powers and conduct are governed by the Jury Act.

Jurors are picked at random from the electoral register and receive a jury summons to attend a particular

Crown Court on a set date.

In the criminal courts the jury is unique to the Crown Court. In the magistrates’ court trials are heard by

either a bench of magistrates or a District Judge, who act both as judge and jury.

One problem with this is when questions are raised over the admissibility of evidence, i.e. whether evidence

should be permitted to be presented at the trial. In a Crown Court jury trial, questions of law are dealt with

in the absence of the jury, so if a confession is ruled to be inadmissible by the judge and the trial continues,

the jury will have heard nothing about it. In the magistrates’ court on the other hand, the magistrates or

District Judge will hear the disputed confession evidence. Even if they rule it to be inadmissible, they will

then be expected to put this evidence out of their minds as they continue to hear the trial

The Jury Act was amended in 2015 and 2016 to permit the following:

- Majority verdicts, of no less than five, for non-capital murders

- Reduction of the number of jurors for non-capital murders from 12 to 7

- Reduction in categories of exempted persons from Jury service in the Circuit courts

- Reduction in the number of pre-emptory challenges (challenge of a juror without having to show

cause to challenge the juror). Under tier one previously 4 pre-emptory challenges were allowed for

non-capital murder and other offences which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 15yrs. Under

tier 2, offences which do not carry a mandatory minimum sentence are allowed 2 pre-emptory

challenges. For treason and capital murder, 7 pre-emptory challenges are allowed.

Where the accused is charged with more than offence, for which a varied number of pre-emptory

challenges apply, the number of pre-emptory challenges permitted is 4.

Functions of Judge and Jury

The role of the trial judge is to deal with legal and procedural matters including

directing the jury on matters of law, while the jury assess the evidence and deliver

the verdict. The jury presides as ‘the judges of the facts’ and the judge presides

as ‘the judge of the law’.

The judge and jury therefore have different functions;

A judge can direct a jury to find a defendant not guilty, but cannot direct a jury to

find a defendant guilty under any circumstances.

Persons exempted from Jury duty:

Persons under 18 years of age or over the age of 70;

A person who is not a Commonwealth citizen;

A person who is unable to speak, read or write English;

A person awaiting a preliminary enquiry or trial in the Resident Magistrate or trial in

the Circuit Court for an indictable offence i.e. serious offences such as murder,

shooting with intent and unlawful wounding

A person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a

period in excess of six (6) months.

Others who cannot serve because of the nature of their jobs:

Politicians, some public officials and diplomats

Judges and lawyers

Medical doctors, nurses, soldiers, teachers and pilots

The process of selecting a jury to hear a Court trial is known as empanelling the jury.

Seven jurors are required to start a Court trial, although a ‘jury panel’ of more than

seven potential jurors will be asked to go into court. This larger group of potential jurors

is known as the jury pool. It is from this group that the 7 will be chosen at random. As

each juror is called from the panel and confirmed as jurors they will take their place in

the jury box.

In cases where a juror is unable to continue for any reason (e.g. due to illness), the

replacement juror will be selected from the pool..

The minimum number required on a jury was reduced from 12 to 7 with the 2015 Jury

Amendment Act

Before the jurors take the jury oath or affirmation, they will be told the names of the

main witnesses in the case (prosecution & defence witnesses), together with any

locations relevant to the case.

The purpose of this is to ensure that the members of the jury have no prior

knowledge or connection with anyone involved in the case. If a member of the panel

does have a connection, the judge will usually excuse them and another juror-inwaiting

will take their place.

In Jamaica, the law allows for pre-emptory challenges. In addition to these without

cause challenges, both the prosecution and the defence, have the right to challenge a

juror for cause.

Challenging Jurors

The purpose of a challenge is to disqualify a potential juror for some stated reason

The defence and prosecution have limited grounds open to them to challenge jurors and the

judge has a discretion to excuse jurors.

The most common grounds to object to a juror are that he/she knows the defendant or a

witness. The prosecution and defence are not able to seek to manipulate the composition of a

jury along gender, race or religious lines.

A juror will only be prevented from hearing a case for a good reason.

Typical reasons include bias, prejudice, or prior knowledge that would prevent impartial

evaluation of the evidence presented in court

Challenge for cause, or 'strike for cause,' is a practice that allows attorneys to

remove potential jurors who are incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict in

a trial.

Unlike pre-emptory challenges, there's no limit to the amount of challenges for

cause that may be used. The specific reason for the challenge must be stated and

the judge will decide whether the potential juror is fit to serve on the jury.

Challenges for cause may be based on a variety of factors. Such as:

Actual biases: This arises where the juror has prior knowledge of the facts of the

case or a deeply ingrained attitude about the case, a preconceived opinion about

either the facts of the case, the accused or the circumstances surrounding the case

is an exempted person as outlined in the Jury act;

- is incapable of rendering jury service due to mental or physical infirmity;

- is, or has been previously, involved in the case against the defendant as a party, a

witness, or a trial juror;

- has sued the defendant or been sued by him or her in a civil action;

-has complained against or been accused by the defendant in a criminal

prosecution;

- is related to the defendant or alleged victim of the crime by blood or marriage;

- has formed or expressed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant

Preliminary Instructions to the Jury

The evidence upon which the case should be decided is the evidence presented in court.

They should only discuss the case among themselves and not with anyone else

They should not be influenced by any media reporting and should not attempt to obtain

further information about the case from anyone outside court, using social media and the

internet to contact witnesses or to otherwise conduct research.

Any concerns during the trial, either relating to the improper conduct of another juror

(e.g. internet research) or to some other external factor (such as being approached by a

third party regarding the case who attempts to influence them), should immediately be

brought to the attention of the judge.

In a criminal trial both the prosecution and the defence are allowed to give an

opening statement.

The prosecution will go first, as the criminal justice system provides for the burden of

proof in the crime to fall to the prosecution. That means, the prosecution must first

prove beyond reasonable doubt that the elements to prove the crime have been met.

The purpose of the opening statement is to outline the “facts” of the case for the

prosecution and for the defence to outline the innocence of the accused. The

opening statement will include what each side intends to prove during the trial.

The opening statement is given at the opening/beginning of each sides case. That is,

the defence will not give an opening statement, until the prosecution has closed its case

A significant part of the trial process is the questioning of

witnesses. This is done by examination-in-chief, crossexamination

and where necessary, re-examination.

Examination in chief- questioning of your own witness. In an

examination in chief, the attorney cannot ask leading questions.

Any evidence being tendered to prove the case must be brought

in through the witness.

Cross-examination- questioning of the other sides witness. In

this type of questioning, the attorney is allowed to ask leading

questions. The purpose is to challenge the case and testimony of

the witness which was given in examination in chief. The attorney

should pay keen attention that the questions are not just aimed

at identifying inconsistencies in the witnesses testimony or the

case of the other side, but to also get admissions where possible

Re-Examination- This occurs after the witness has been

examined in chief and cross-examined. It allows the attorney for

the witness to clarify any inconsistencies in the witnesses

statement during cross-examination.

It is limited to only those matters that were raised during crossexamination.

It is not another opportunity to go through the

evidence provided