The system of trial by jury is an area that fascinates every member of the legal profession. The jury system has been viewed as a magnificent achievement of civilization and a unique aspect of western legal thought. Fundamentally, the jury system refers to a mechanism where a group of laypersons, usually twelve, is assigned with the duty of determining the facts of a case and delivering a judgment. It stands as a symbol of participatory justice where ordinary citizens are given a voice in the legal system. Given its significance in many legal systems today, it is only natural to be curious about the origin of such a notable institution. Some writers have believed that the history of jury trials is so obscured by antiquity that nothing is known of its origin and further research into the history of the jury trial is futile¹. Jury trial emerged gradually and covertly as a custom due to society's usage. It is not a product of a law approved by the parliament.
 
Numerous ideas exist regarding the birth of this favorite child of English law. The jury system is commonly thought to have been established by the Anglo-Saxon king Alfred the Great². Spelman wasn't sure whether to credit the system's invention to the Saxons or the Normans³. Blackstone, though, was certain that there were juries in the early Saxon colonies⁴. In his book, "The Origin and Progress of the Judicial Institutions of Europe," Meyer views the jury system as a modified version of Henry II's Grand Assize⁵. This was a significant legal innovation of the twelfth century, introduced by Henry II as an alternative to the brutal and uncertain trial by battle. A Grand Assize was a group of people who were called to help solve a problem about who owns a piece of land. It allowed for a fair and impartial decision to be made by a panel of jurors, representing an early move towards resolving disputes through rational judgment rather than physical strength.
 
Some believe that the jury system was applied in Normandy in all situations of little concern and that when the Normans immigrated to England, the Normans tried to replace the Saxon courts with this system. According to this view, the jury was not used during the Anglo-Saxon period and was instead a Norman innovation quickly implemented following the invasion. Others however, argue that the system was already in use during the Anglo- Saxon era, even though there is no clear documentation of when it first appeared. It is also believed by some that the roots of this institution were planted by the Normans and that they derived it from Scandinavian tribunals, where the judicial number of twelve was always held in great veneration⁶.
 
Despite the debates surrounding its origin, one of the unique aspects of the jury trial system was that the jury was made up of people selected from the general public who were independent of the judges and who had been called to decide the truthfulness of disputed facts⁷. Their role was to determine the impact of the evidence and the resulting question in order for the judge to be able to render an accurate judgment. However, they were not the court and did not belong to it, nor did they have any authority over the punishment. They were called upon to serve as the occasion arises, and then they returned to their regular avocations and pursuits to be completely free of any professional bias or prejudice.  
 
The initial jury served mostly as witnesses for administrative cases and provided information about local issues. Later, under Henry II, the jury started to play a more significant role in the legal system, switching from reporting on occurrences they were aware of, to considering evidence presented by the parties to a dispute.
 
This evolving role of the jury in legal proceedings laid the foundation for the concept of ‘trial by the country⁸.’ Initially, the goal of this trial ‘by the country’ or ‘by the people’ as opposed to a trial by the government, was to safeguard citizens against all sorts of state repression. No one could be judged guilty other than for breaching laws that the majority of the country desired to uphold since convictions had to be unanimous. Therefore, in accordance with a jury trial, the government could not exert any authority over the people (or the accused, who represented the rights of the people), unless the whole people of the country consented that the Government may exercise such authority.
 
At the time of Magna Carta, the King was the nation's sole legislative, judicial, and executive power. The executive and judicial authorities were just his employees, appointed by him and removed at his discretion⁹. The monarch personally sat in the court. He heard cases and rendered judgments, and although he was supported by the advice of other members, the rendered conclusions were rarely opposed to his preference or view. Judges were viewed as servants of the King in those days and subsequently, we learn that King Edward I punished and imprisoned his judges in the same way that Alfred the Great had done before him among the Saxons, by the exclusive exercise of his authority¹⁰.
 
Parliament had previously been a simple council of the King. When laws were enacted during the period, they were enacted solely in the name of the King. Their assent or advice was obviously of no legal significance to the creation or validity of the legislation, but was merely added, if at all, with the intention of securing more voluntary approval of the people. The monarch could pass laws whenever it suited him. The consent or counsel of the gathering Bishops, Barons, and others was obviously of no legal significance to the creation or legality of the legislation.
 
From 1199 to 1216, King John ruthlessly ruled England. Famously, Matthew Paris, an English Benedictine monk, described him as a "tyrant rather than a King." King John epitomized tyranny and oppression. The Barons of North England were increasingly turning against John and rebelling against his rule. In 1215, the people cornered King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta.
 
Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta includes the guarantee that no free men may suffer punishment without the lawful judgment of his peers.  As a condition for his kingship, the Barons of England forced King John to swear that he would punish no freeman for a violation of any of his laws unless the peers of the accused, his equals, approved. The jury trial was their only effective defense against the King's total dictatorship. King John clearly understood that the juries would have the power to veto his laws and limit his authority at their discretion by forming their own opinions about the nature of the crimes they would be trying and the laws they would be required to uphold, and that the king's wishes and orders would be of no consequence to them in contrast to their individual assessments of what was morally correct.
 
The independence of the jury, however, was not always guaranteed in practice. Judges would often try to influence or intimidate jurors, especially in politically sensitive cases. A major turning point came with the Bushell’s Case (1670)¹¹. Previously, judges would attempt to intimidate jurors into convicting the defendant, especially when the crime had political overtones. However, in Bushell's Case, it was established that the jury was the only fact-finder, had the freedom to render a verdict in accordance with their conscience, and could not be punished for holding an interpretation of the facts that differed from the judge's.
 
In a present jury trial, the decision on whether a person is guilty or not rests with the jury. They do not, however, have the power to decide on the penalty. Judge decides on the penalty. They can only judge whether or not the accused is innocent. The law does not bind jury members. As a result, a jury's job is to determine a matter by taking into account the evidence presented in court and the judge's instructions. In jury trials, the jury renders or issues a verdict, meaning that the judge will punish the accused if the jury finds him or her guilty. On the other hand, if the judge disagrees with the jury's decision, he or she also has the ability and authority to do so. This is so because the judge in any trial has absolute authority. This stability between the jury’s conscience and the judge’s oversight highlights the unique collaboration between community judgment and legal interpretation that defines modern jury trials.
 
The origins of the jury trial precede the creation of Magna Carta. However, in many nations that follow common law, it is regarded as the most revered legacy of the Magna Carta. Although Magna Carta did not establish the jury system in the contemporary sense, its political goal of preventing the king's dominance of the courts influenced subsequent generations to view the right to a jury trial as one of the fundamental protections against capricious governance. A jury trial is regarded as the most effective means of determining guilt or innocence, with the purpose of increasing transparency and fairness in the legal system.  People who serve as jurors depart with a higher regard for the system. Serving on a jury provides people with insight into the court system as well as their own communities. As a result, the idea of Trial by Jury has resonated far beyond the common legal system, with many countries now embracing the jury system. Japan, for instance, reintroduced the jury system in 2009, where ordinary citizens, serving as saiban-in, help decide the verdicts alongside professional judges. Ultimately, a jury trial is unquestionably one of the supreme works of jurisprudence.