Jury Trial | The Jury Court

Estimated reading time: 13 minutes

The jury trial process by Criminal Jury Trial Attorney Thomas Gallagher.

Every person facing a criminal accusation has the right to a jury trial. Moreover, a fair trial benefits all of us.

Do we as a society have an interest in fair trial procedures? We all suffer when a jury convicts a person of a crime they did not commit. And when a jury convicts the wrong person, the true perpetrator of the crime will not be found. Moreover, when the process is low quality, every single one of us and our loved ones are at risk of unjust prosecution.

Of all the steps in the criminal court process, the jury trial process is pivotal. And Minnesota Court Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 26 provides guidelines for jury trials. In the end, however, the quality of justice depends upon you and me.

The criminal jury trial attorney is the key to enforcement of all the other legal protections for the accused. And your attorney should understand the psychology of persuasion.

A fair trial, or a show trial?

A trial could be fair. Or, a trial could have precious little fairness about it — just a highly-managed public relations effort to create the appearance of legitimacy for a smear campaign. To label a court proceeding a “trial” means nothing. But to conduct a fair, trustworthy, reliable trial requires effort.

In a fair trial, the court focuses upon a fair jury trial process. It ignores the effect choices increasing fairness may have on the outcome. This is what we mean by “Justice is blind.” The right of the accused to present her chosen defense is basic and fundamental to a fair trial. But sometimes a prosecutor or a judge prevents a defendant from presenting their defense or their evidence.

“The trial of Jesus of Nazareth, the trial and rehabilitation of Joan of Arc, any one of the witchcraft trials in Salem during 1691, the Moscow trials of 1937 during which Stalin destroyed all of the founders of the 1924 Soviet Revolution, the Sacco-Vanzetti trial of 1920 through 1927 – there are many trials such as these in which the victim was already condemned to death before the trial took place, and it took place only to cover up the real meaning: the accused was to be put to death. These are trials in which the judge, the counsel, the jury, and the witnesses are the criminals, not the accused.”

Katherine Anne Porter, The Never-Ending Wrong, page 40

Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO): The right to a jury trial means that the jury has a right to all the relevant evidence constitutionally obtained. And this must include relevant and material evidence, from the defense perspective.

The jury trial attorney for the defense must ensure that defense evidence gets to the jury. He demands that the court honor our Constitutional right to present a defense.

“The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one’s own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process.”

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (US Supreme Court 1973)

“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses … is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.”

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (US Supreme Court 1967)

And not only do judges overly limit evidence the jury can see, they also limit the jury’s right to know the consequences of their decision. Should the law recognize the jury’s right to know what a sentence could be if they were to bring a guilty verdict? Traditionally, they did know; but today judges act as censors keeping that info secret from the jury within the trial itself.

Fact-finding step: At last, the trial is the “search for the truth” step in the court process. In the jury trial process, the jury is the finder-of-fact and law. But in a court trial to a judge only, the judge is the fact-finder. The “fact-finder” considers both side’s evidence; and decides what they think really happened. The fact-finding function precedes the application of the law to the facts. But the jury also applies the law to the facts.

Lawyers outline trial with judge

Jury trials begin with the lawyers discussing the trial evidence, motions in limine, with the judge. They discuss an outline of the trial evidence, along with witness and scheduling issues. Jury trials usually last for days or weeks.

Jury selection

The next step in the jury trial process is jury selection. The defense lawyer and the prosecutor talk to the potential jury members with the judge observing. We call this “voir dire.”

Qualifications and For Cause Challenges

The jury trial attorney may challenge a potential juror “for cause” (meaning for a reason). If so, the judge decides whether to excuse that potential juror or not.

Under Minn. Court General Rules of Practice, Rule 808, to be qualified to serve as a juror, the prospective juror must be:

1. A citizen of the United States.
2. At least 18 years old.
3. A resident of the county.
4. Able to communicate in the English language.
5. Able to render satisfactory jury service, with reasonable disability accommodations if necessary.
6. A person who has had their civil right to vote restored if they have been convicted of a felony.
7. A person who has not served as a state or federal grand or petit juror in the past four years, with exceptions.
8. If a qualified prospective juror is 70 years of age or older and requests to be excused from jury service, the person shall be automatically excused from service without having to submit evidence of an inability to serve.

And under Minn. Court General Rules of Practice, Rule 810. Excuses:

1. Automatic excuses or disqualifications from jury service are provided in Rule 808 (above).
2. Eligible persons who are summoned may be excused from jury service if:
   • their ability to receive and evaluate information is impaired such that they are unable to perform their duties as jurors and they are excused for this reason by a judge; or
   • they request to be excused because their service would be a continuing hardship to them or to members of the public and they are excused for this reason by the jury commissioner.

And,

“At a voir dire examination, a challenged juror may be examined as a witness to prove or disprove the challenge. The juror shall answer every question pertinent to the inquiry. When challenged on the ground that the juror is not a citizen of the United States, the juror’s own testimony is competent evidence of the fact of naturalization, without other evidence. The juror’s testimony on the issue of citizenship may be disputed by the challenger. …”

Minn. Stat. § 631.36 VOIR DIRE (2025)

Either side has “move to strike for cause “the right to strike an individual from being impaneled on a jury for cause based on a showing that a physical or sensory disability will impair the juror’s ability to try a particular case.” Minn. Stat. § 593.32.

And under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26.02, Subd. 5 (1) Challenge for Cause — Grounds:

“A juror may be challenged for cause on these grounds:

1. The juror’s state of mind – in reference to the case or to either party – satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party.

2. A felony conviction unless the juror’s civil right to vote has been restored.

3. The lack of any qualification under law.

4. The juror is unable to render satisfactory jury service, with reasonable disability accommodations if necessary.

5. A known relationship by blood or marriage to the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or to the person on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, or to the defendant, or to any of the attorneys in the case.

6. Standing as a guardian, ward, attorney, client, employer, employee, landlord, tenant, family member of the defendant, or person alleged to have been injured by the offense, or whose complaint instituted the prosecution.

7. Being a party adverse to the defendant in a civil action, or a party who complained against the defendant, or whom the defendant accused, in a criminal prosecution.

8. Service on the grand jury that found the indictment or an indictment on a related offense.

9. Service on a trial jury that tried another person for the same or a related offense as the pending charge.

10. Service on any jury previously sworn to try the pending charge.

11. Service as a juror in any case involving the defendant.”

Rule 26.02, Subd. 5 (1), Minn. R. Crim. Pro.

Peremptory Challenges: jury trial

After that process each jury trial attorney may exercise their “peremptory challenges” (no reason required, normally) to exclude potential jurors. But a lawyer’s peremptory challenge may be subject to objection by the opposing attorney on constitutional grounds. For example, the lawyer may object when he suspects the peremptory challenge was based on race.

And under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26.02, Subd. 6, Peremptory Challenges,

“For any other offense [not punishable by life imprisonment], the defendant has five peremptory challenges and the prosecutor has three. In cases with more than one defendant, the court may allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. The prosecutor’s peremptory challenges must be correspondingly increased. All peremptory challenges must be exercised out of the hearing of the jury panel.”

Rule 26.02, Subd. 6, Minn. R. Crim. Pro.

After the judge rules on for cause challenges, and the defense and prosecution exercise their peremptory challenges to the jury panel, the court swears in the remaining people as jurors and alternates in the case.

Opening statements: jury trial

After the jury swears its oath, the prosecuting attorney makes an Opening Statement to the jury. Then the defense lawyer may follow with an Opening Statement. Or he may reserve it for after the close of the prosecution evidence.

Prosecution case-in-chief

Next the prosecuting lawyer presents the prosecution evidence. The prosecutor must attempt to meet her initial burden of production of evidence; or “prima facie” case. If she does, then the prosecution case can survive a defense motion for acquittal. And the prosecuting attorney then hopes to meet their burden of persuading the jury beyond doubt.

“The doubts of a single juror are in my view evidence that the government has failed to carry its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Thurgood Marshall, Dissent, Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 US 356 (US Supreme Court 1972)

Cross examination

“Examination” means to question. When a lawyer questions their own witness, we call that “Direct Examination.” And then, when the opposing lawyer questions that opposing witness, we call that “Cross Examination.”

“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”

Proverbs 18:17 (New International Version).

Cross examination of witnesses is essential to the search for the truth by a jury during deliberations. And it may be the most powerful tool available to the defense, in exposing a weak prosecution case.

Defense case

After the prosecution case, the defense may present defense evidence, if it chooses to present evidence. The defense jury trial attorney often will not, since the burden of proving claims made, lays squarely upon the prosecuting attorney. Why present defense evidence when the prosecution evidence fails? But each case is different.

“‘In cases of doubt it is no less just than it is safe to adopt the milder construction.’ Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public.

Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, ‘a passionate man,’ seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, ‘Oh, illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?’ to which Julian replied, ‘If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?'”

COFFIN v. US, 156 US 432 (US Supreme Court 1895)

Final arguments: jury trial

Closing arguments to the jury by both lawyers follow. Most consider the prosecution and defense final arguments the most interesting part of the trial. They summarize the evidence in the trial, and connect it to the applicable law, from each party’s perspective.

Judge offers jury instructions

After the judge instructs the jury on the judge’s opinions about the law, the jury and bailiff will be sworn. Then the jury will deliberate.

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”

Benjamin Franklin

Jury deliberation

The culmination of the jury trial process is deliberation. During deliberation, at last, the jury is now in control. They can take as much time as they like. But if the jury is unable to agree on a unanimous verdict, eventually the judge will declare a mistrial. If the jury does reach a verdict, we all reconvene in the courtroom for the verdict.

“Reflective opinions upholding the necessity for the jury as a protection against arbitrary action, such as prosecutorial abuse of power, stress fundamental features like the jury ‘common sense judgment’ and assurance of ‘community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.’ Human frailty being what it is, a prosecutor disposed by unworthy motives could likely establish some basis in fact for bringing charges against anyone he wants to book, but the jury system operates in fact, so that the jury will not convict when they empathize with the defendant, as when the offense is one they see themselves as likely to commit, or consider generally acceptable or condonable under the mores of the community.”

United States v. Dougherty, 473 F2d 1113 (DC Cir 1972)

Jury power: Some of the judge’s jury instructions can be misleading. When a judge instructs jurors to simply “follow the law,” that instruction is incomplete.

“We have acknowledged that the jury in a criminal case has a ‘raw power of lenity.’ State v. Perkins, 353 N.W.2d 557, 561-62 (Minn.1984). This power is not a right, but rather the result of a number of things, including the defendant’s right to a jury trial, the rule ‘prohibiting postverdict inquiry into the thought processes of jurors,’ and the ‘rules against appellate review of verdicts of acquittal.’ Id. at 561. The Constitution does not mandate a jury instruction informing the jury of its ‘raw power of lenity.'”

McKenzie v. State, 754 NW2d 366 (Minn. Supreme Court 2008)

Judicial jury instructions should include the law on the jury’s power. Legislation in Minnesota could require one. However despite a missing jury instruction the law says that the core of the jury trial is the power of the jury to apply its community standards and delivery any verdict it views as just. Because, the law says the jury has the power to return a not-guilty verdict where the jurors believe that the law is wrong. And the jury can bring a not-guilty verdict; even if the jury believes beyond doubt that defendant did the prohibited act intentionally. This is one vital way the people can defend their rights.

“A jury has a power of lenity and can bring in a not guilty verdict in the teeth of the facts.”

State v. Carlson, 268 NW2d 553, 560 (Minn Supreme Court 1978)

In its full form, we call the power: jury nullification. It’s the power of the jury to veto unjust laws. Juries have had this power since the beginning of the United States. In fact, we can trace it back to the birth of democracy in Classical Athens, over 2,400 years ago. So, this power is the essence a jury trial. Another, broader term is the power of jury lenity.

“The jury in a criminal case has the power of lenity — that is, the power to bring in a verdict of not guilty despite the law and the facts.”

State v. Perkins, 353 NW2d 557 (Minn Supreme Court 1984)

If not every law is just, should unjust laws be enforced just because they are “the law?” For one answer, see Gallagher’s article:

Jesus as Defense Lawyer: The Woman Accused of Adultery.

Quite simply, the jury is a check against the power of elites in the courts & legislature. It’s the People’s power to veto injustice.

Natural Law: Our legal culture and history recognize nature and biology. The founders’ of the United States based the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on Natural Law and Natural Rights. The Constitution and the limited powers of our government rest upon that solid foundation. And within those limits, the legislature adopts laws subject to veto by the executive, the President. So we recognize a hierarchy of laws. If a lesser law conflicts with a higher law, it is void:

1. The highest, unchanging and most foundational law is Natural Law.
2. Constitutional law is rest on Natural Law, can be changed.
3. Statutes result from the constitutional process.
4. Administrative Rules of executive branch agencies are the result of statutes.

“There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal. … This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. … It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing to-day, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations, this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable. … He who obeys it not, flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero, Cicero’s Republic, Barham Trans, B. 3, p. 270

And jurors are last defense of the Constitution and the Natural Rights of humans:

“I consider that [trial by jury] as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, July 1789

A real jury trial is a cornerstone of any real democracy.

Verdict

If the verdict is not-guilty; the court releases the defendant. But if the verdict is “guilty;” the judge may order the defendant into custody. Or the judge may order that conditions of pretrial release continue until the sentencing hearing.

If either the defense or the prosecution believes the jury trial process or pretrial proceedings were illegal or unfair, they can appeal to a higher court. Though some appeals succeed, most do not.

Who has a right to a jury trial?

In Minnesota, the right to a jury trial depends upon the offense level of the charge.

Any criminal charge (felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor) triggers your right to a jury. But you don’t have the right to a jury on a petty misdemeanor charge since jail is not possible.

And currently traditional juvenile court denies the right to a jury trial to most juveniles facing criminal charges. (This is a problem since a Minnesota juvenile “adjudication” of guilt strips civil rights, and can trigger predatory offender registration.)

An accused person may waive or give up her right to a jury trial. And if she does, she chooses a trial to a judge. The trial procedure is similar, but without jury selection and deliberation.

How many jurors in a jury trial?

In Minnesota, a person charged with a felony or gross misdemeanor has the right to a jury of twelve. And we pick one or more alternates, in case we lose a juror along the way. In a misdemeanor case, the accused has the right to a jury of six. Since loss of liberty is not possible in a petty misdemeanor, we have no jury trial right in Minnesota when facing a petty misdemeanor charge.

Do all jurors have to agree for a verdict?

Yes. A verdict in a Minnesota criminal case must be unanimous; whether guilty or not-guilty.

“Defendants charged with felony offenses have a right to a trial by a jury of 12 members. Minn. Const., art. I, § 6. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, jury verdicts in felony criminal trials must be unanimous. Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020).”

State v. Bey, 975 NW 2d 511 (Minn. Supreme Court 2022)

And the judge will ask the jury to deliberate until it reaches a verdict. But if a juror sends a note to the judge saying that “one or more jurors believe further deliberations would be coercive,” the judge will inquire and may declares a mistrial if the jury cannot in good conscience reach a verdict. We call this a deadlocked or hung jury.

Post-Trial Motions

If the verdict is Not-guilty, it’s finally over. The journey through the courts is complete. But in the event of a Guilty verdict, the defense effort must continue, with post-trial motions.

We normally file two post-trial motions, a Motion for a New Trial, and a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. In those defense motions, we bring the judge’s attention to the legal errors and violations that made the trial unfair and unreliable, whether by the witnesses, prosecutor, judge or jurors, as well as the evidence and reasons the judge should vacate the guilty verdict. Post-trial motions, under Rule 26.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, must be served within 15 days of a verdict or finding of guilty.

The judge may grant a new trial, amend findings, or vacate the judgment. But even if the judge does not grant these motions, the defense motions preserve issues raised for closer review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, or other appellate courts.

Your criminal defense attorney

You have the right to a lawyer at trial. Though an accused person has the right to represent themselves without a lawyer, that is not a good idea. Even lawyers hire other lawyer to represent them in court.

Conducting a jury trial is an art, requiring hard work and skill. You should hire a criminal jury trial attorney with the skills and a proven history. A good criminal defense lawyer understands and can explain the jury trial process. He works hard and smart for his client.

“Will my case go to jury trial?”

Every criminal case goes to trial unless resolved before trial. And this is every defendant’s sacred right. But a case can settle by agreement or a judge or prosecutor can dismiss the charges after defense efforts. So if that happens, there is no trial.

Minnesota Criminal Lawyer Thomas Gallagher advises clients that the outcome should be the priority; not the time, effort or process. It should not matter whether the defense outcome comes from a:

• plea agreement,
• judge’s Order after a Contested Omnibus Hearing, or
• not-guilty verdict.

Fear of the unknown is natural. But remember that the jury trial right belongs to the defendant. So it is a protection for the defense, against an unfair prosecution.

And Attorney Gallagher can explain and prepare his client for trial. An experienced jury trial attorney, he can help you understand what was once the unknown.

“There are three points in the constitution of Solon which appear to be its most democratic features: first and most important, the prohibition of loans on the security of the debtor’s person; secondly, the right of every person who so willed to claim redress on behalf of any one to whom wrong was being done; thirdly, the institution of the appeal to the jurycourts; and it is to this last, they say, that the masses have owed their strength most of all, since, when the democracy is master of the voting-power, it is master of the constitution.
Moreover, since the laws were not drawn up in simple and explicit terms (but like the one concerning inheritances and wards of state), disputes inevitably occurred, and the courts had to decide in every matter, whether public or private. Some persons in fact believe that Solon deliberately made the laws indefinite, in order that the final decision might be in the hands of the people.”

The Athenian Constitution, Section 1, Part 9, By Aristotle, Written 350 B.C.E

Question? Call Lawyer Thomas Gallagher, 612 333-1500

More: jury trial

The Psychology of Juries < Book Review

Pretrial Conference | Rule 8 Appearance

Point-of-View and Self-Defense

The Trial of Jesus: A Criminal Law Perspective

Select Articles on Trials

Criminal Defenses in Minnesota