The Criminal Trial Process and the Jury - TCE Legal Studies (Tasmania)
“Describe the criminal trial process and the role and operation of the jury.”
In a serious (indictable) criminal trial the prosecution presents its case and the defence responds, with witnesses examined and cross-examined before a judge and jury. The judge controls the law and procedure; the jury of citizens decides the facts and returns a verdict of guilty or not guilty, applying the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
What this dot point is asking
This dot point asks you to describe the stages of a criminal trial and to explain what the jury does and why it matters.
The stages of a criminal trial
A serious criminal trial in the Supreme Court of Tasmania follows a recognisable structure:
- Arraignment and plea: the accused is formally charged in court and enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. A guilty plea moves the matter straight to sentencing.
- Empanelling the jury: where the accused pleads not guilty, a jury is selected from the community.
- Prosecution case: the prosecution outlines its case, then calls witnesses who give evidence and are cross-examined by the defence.
- Defence case: the defence may call its own evidence and witnesses, who can be cross-examined by the prosecution. The accused cannot be forced to give evidence, reflecting the right to silence.
- Closing addresses: both sides summarise their arguments to the jury.
- Judge's summing up: the judge explains the relevant law to the jury and reminds them that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Verdict and sentence: the jury deliberates and delivers its verdict. If the verdict is guilty, the judge later imposes a sentence.
In a jury trial there is a clear division: the judge controls procedure and rules on questions of law, while the jury is the sole judge of the facts and decides whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. The judge does not tell the jury what verdict to reach.
The role of the jury
The jury is a group of ordinary citizens, twelve in a Tasmanian criminal trial, who decide whether the prosecution has proved its case. The jury system brings community judgment into the courtroom, is intended to protect against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions, and reflects the idea of being judged by one's peers. Jurors are selected at random from the electoral roll, and both sides may challenge a limited number of potential jurors during selection. The jury must reach its verdict based only on the evidence presented in court and the law as explained by the judge.
Jurors are expected to reach a unanimous verdict, meaning all twelve agree. Where the jury cannot agree after a reasonable time, the law allows a majority verdict in some circumstances, and if no verdict can be reached at all the jury is discharged and a retrial may follow before a new jury. During the trial jurors must not discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room or research it themselves, because the verdict must rest only on the evidence tested in open court. These rules protect the fairness and impartiality of the trial.
The decision of the jury (or, in a summary matter, the magistrate) on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. In a criminal trial a guilty verdict requires the prosecution to have proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Strengths and weaknesses of the jury
The jury system has both supporters and critics. Strengths include community participation, the legitimacy of a verdict reached by ordinary citizens, and a safeguard against the misuse of state power. Weaknesses include the risk that jurors may not fully understand complex evidence, the cost and delay involved, and the possibility of bias or exposure to outside information such as media coverage. Trial judges manage these risks through directions, suppression orders and, in some cases, by allowing trial by judge alone.
A common task asks you to walk through what happens once an accused pleads not guilty. Work through it in steps.
Step 1: Arraignment and plea
State that the accused is formally charged in court and pleads not guilty, which sends the matter to trial rather than straight to sentencing.
Step 2: Empanel the jury
Explain that twelve jurors are selected at random from the electoral roll, with both sides able to challenge a limited number.
Step 3: Hear the evidence
Set out that the prosecution presents its case and calls witnesses, who are cross-examined by the defence; the defence may then call its own evidence, with the accused free to stay silent.
Step 4: Address, sum up, decide
Explain that both sides make closing addresses, the judge sums up the law and reminds the jury of the beyond reasonable doubt standard, and the jury then deliberates and delivers its verdict. If the verdict is guilty, the judge later imposes the sentence.
A common error is to believe the jury sets the punishment. It does not. The jury only decides the verdict, whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. If the verdict is guilty, it is the judge who determines the sentence.
For exam answers, set out the trial stages in order, explain the division between judge (law) and jury (facts), describe how the jury is chosen and what it must do, and be ready to evaluate the jury system's strengths and weaknesses.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of TASC exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Practice6 marksDescribe the division of functions between the judge and the jury in a criminal trial.Show worked answer →
A 6 mark response needs both roles and the clear line between them.
The judge. The judge controls the trial: ruling on questions of law, deciding what evidence is admissible, managing procedure, and summing up by explaining the relevant law to the jury and reminding them that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The jury. The jury of twelve citizens is the sole judge of the facts. It listens to the evidence, applies the law as the judge explains it, and decides whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.
The line. The judge does not tell the jury what verdict to reach, and the jury does not decide the law or the sentence. Markers reward stating "judge decides the law, jury decides the facts" and noting that sentencing is the judge's job, not the jury's.
Practice12 marksEvaluate the use of juries in serious criminal trials in Tasmania, referring to both strengths and weaknesses.Show worked answer →
A 12 mark evaluation needs strengths, weaknesses, and a reasoned judgement.
Strengths. The jury brings community participation and the legitimacy of a verdict reached by ordinary citizens. It is a safeguard against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions, reflects the principle of being judged by one's peers, and spreads responsibility across twelve people rather than one decision-maker.
Weaknesses. Jurors may struggle with complex or technical evidence, trials with juries are slower and more expensive, and there is a risk of bias or exposure to outside information such as media coverage. Jurors give no reasons for their verdict, so an error is hard to detect.
Management. Note that judges manage these risks through directions, suppression orders, and in some cases trial by judge alone.
Judgement. Conclude with a clear position, for example that the jury remains a valuable democratic safeguard despite real cost and comprehension concerns. Markers reward a balanced evaluation that reaches a defended conclusion rather than just listing points.