Courts of general jurisdiction typically have

Courts of general jurisdiction typically have

1. a judge and jury

2. a judge only

3. a jury only

4. a panel of judges

Answer: 1. a judge and jury

Many courts of general jurisdiction involve a judge and a jury in the distribution of justice. This system commonly known as the adversarial system enables trial by a judge to provide legal input and a jury who brings society input into the trial. The judge on the other hand is required to preside over the process, make relevant decisions on some issues of law and give a charge to the jury on the law to be followed. A jury, the people from the community, listens to the evidence and tries to find out the facts of the case by imposing the law as pronounced by the judge.

For instance, in a criminal trial where a case is held in a general jurisdiction court, the judge handles the matters of the court, the admissibility of the evidence presented, and the overall adherence to legal processes. The jury would be allowed to hear both sides of the argument and the evidence as well as the witnesses and through the legal rules explained by the judge, the jury alone would pronounce the verdict of guilty or not guilty. In civil cases, the jury could decide on the issue of negligence and the quantum of damages. The structure with the legal representation as well as the participation of the communities is the key to the efficiency of the decisions taken without neglecting the expertise of the legal professional. However, it must also be noted that in some areas, or for particular forms of actions, ordinary trials without the participation of the jury but with the judge deciding on issues of both law and fact may be possible. Moreover, the particular way of this system functioning may differ depending on the country and the legal realities.