What real life criminal trials that proved the jury are efficient?

brandon toh: What real life criminal trials that proved the jury are efficient?
Please give positive answers only that support my question.
This information is needed for a debate.
Please give as many as possibl real life criminal trials with jury that have proved they are efficient.
Thanks in advance.

Answers and Views:

Answer by Criminal Lawyer Vancouver
They need to proof him/her self in front of the law.

Answer by joemoser1948
Jury trials are never “efficient” – assuming you mean the usual sense of that word. Jury trials take longer and, thus, cost more.

Answer by Durgesh Kumar
just go and check this site it is very useful site for law related questions

Answer by divot II
Jurors are paid, not much, by they are paid. A jury trial requires a judge who is paid, and jurors who are paid and sometimes fed at public expense, and sometimes housed at public expense. Jury trials always cost more than bench trials. They are never more financially “efficient.”

Perhaps you don’t mean “efficient,” perhaps you mean “efficacious.” That’s a horse of a different color.

Answer by Bilal Aziz
I used to work in a court and seen many jury trials in my days and it is not ALL bad. I think jury system is fair and effective for the majority of cases. Think back to all the major miscarriages of justice of the last 50 years and you’d be hard pressed to find one where the fault lay with the jury. Overwhelmingly the miscarriages have been due to failures in other parts of the system – by police, by experts, by witnesses or by lawyers. If the evidence put before the jury is flawed, because it is tainted by impropriety, wrongly interpreted, ­inaccurate or incomplete, then you will get a flawed verdict.

Successful jury trials include so many.
Jack the ripper
Derek Brown, who tried to copy Jack the Ripper
Soham murdered Ian HuntleyH
Rickie Preddie, Damilola’s murderer
Yorkshire ripper Peter Sutcliffe
Joe Venables

Hope this helps 🙂

Answer by Brian G
I hope the question is not really one of “efficiency.” If it is you are going to lose the debate. The jury system is extremely inefficient, unwieldy, and costly. That is one of the good things about it. An “efficient” system would be one where the cop on the street would be accuser, judge, jury and executioner on the spot. I hope no one is in favor of that, but some probably are.

If you do have to debate this question on the basis of efficiency, what are the alternative? Jury system as opposed to what? Judge only? Professional, full-time jurors? Tossing a coin?

It is also going to be difficult to cite cases, because there is no good access to original trial transcripts. What can be found through legal research is the results of appeals, which don’t go into much detail regarding the finding of fact, which is what the jury is supposed to do.