Briefly describe two forerunners of the present-day jury trial.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In the days before jury trials, proof of guilt or innocence was decided by ordeal, battle, or compurgation. For the most part, trial by ordeal was an appeal to the supernatural. Later, another kind of trial was introduced in England as a result of the Norman Conquest in 1066. This was trial by battle or combat, also known as "wager of battle." A more humane method of ascertaining guilt or innocence utilized from time to time was trial by compurgation, also known as "wager of law." In this system the accused would testify in his or her own behalf, pleading innocence. Later, a trial by jury system began to make its appearance. It was in no way like the trial by jury as we know it. The first juries functioned by charging the accused with a crime, acting in much the same capacity as a grand jury of today. They served to substantiate an accusation, leaving the test of innocence or guilt to be decided by some other means, such as trial by ordeal, battle, or wager of law. As time passed and these methods lost favor, the accusatory jury was given a dual function. Jury members would gather information from the countryside, mostly hearsay (unsworn, out-of-court statements), concerning the alleged crime and, later, would decide whether the accused should be held for trial. If a trial was ultimately held, the same jury would try the accused and render a verdict.