In a trial by jury, established procedures ensure that juries are not set back by their lack of prior knowledge on law. Firstly, whatever jurors lack in their knowledge of law is compensated for during the "charge to the jury", when the judge instructs them on the various aspects of the law pertaining to the case. This keeps them focused on the issue at hand, which benefits the process of reaching at the truth. Secondly, jurors are not set back by the presence of a complicated set of evidences and testimonies. The trial judge should not only explain the relevant sections of law, but also relate those evidences to the law; so that the jurors can appropriately appreciate the gravity those evidences hold over the issue (Azoulay. v. R). "It is not sufficient that the whole evidence be left to the jury in bulk for valuation" (R. v. Stephen). A failure to so correlate the law to the evidence may well leave a jury in a state of confusion and hence necessitate a new trial (R. v. Hladiy). As a result of these processes, the juries in trials are always compensated, for their lack of prior knowledge on law.…
