Definition
A common jury is the ordinary jury drawn from the general pool of eligible citizens and empaneled to decide questions of fact in civil or criminal proceedings. It is the default form of jury trial — what most people mean when they say "jury" without qualification. The common jury is distinguished primarily by contrast: it is what a jury is unless something else has been specifically arranged.
In historical practice, the common jury consisted of twelve persons selected from the panel of jurors summoned for a given court term, without special qualification beyond the ordinary statutory requirements for jury service. Unanimous verdict requirements, challenge procedures, and juror qualifications were all governed by general rules applicable to the common jury. No elevated property qualification, professional standing, or specialized knowledge was required of its members.
---
Common Confusion
COMMON JURY vs. SPECIAL JURY: The distinction between these two terms was once practically significant and appears throughout older English and American sources. A special jury — sometimes called a "struck jury" — was composed of jurors drawn from a more select list, typically persons of higher social standing, greater property, or specific expertise. Special juries were sometimes available by statute in complex commercial or civil cases, or could be demanded by a party willing to pay the associated costs. The common jury was the default; the special jury required affirmative action to obtain. Modern American practice has effectively abolished the formal special jury distinction, making "common jury" largely a historical and comparative term. Researchers encountering "special jury" in pre-20th-century sources should not assume the rules or composition of that jury match those of the common jury described in the same sources.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term "common jury" appears frequently in 18th- and 19th-century English and American legal materials, particularly in procedural treatises and court practice manuals. It carries little independent doctrinal weight in those sources — its meaning is almost entirely defined by contrast with the special jury. Researchers should be alert to this: when a historical source discusses jury procedure without qualification, it is almost certainly describing the common jury, even if it does not use that label.
The practical abolition of the special jury in most American jurisdictions means that modern sources rarely use "common jury" at all. If the term appears in a modern document, it is likely either quoting or paraphrasing historical authority, or drawing on English practice, where the special jury survived longer. English procedural reform statutes of the 19th century progressively curtailed the special jury, a development that American jurisdictions largely anticipated through earlier statutory simplification.
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should note that discussions of jury composition, qualification, and procedure in encyclopedia entries on grand juries or hung juries address related structural concepts but do not directly treat the common/special jury distinction. That distinction is primarily a feature of civil and criminal trial practice materials, not grand jury doctrine.
One navigational trap: "common jury" in historical sources sometimes appears alongside "common juror" to describe individual members, and occasionally the phrase is used loosely to mean simply "jury of the community" without any technical contrast to the special jury intended. Context will usually clarify which usage is operative.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Burrill's Law Dictionary offer essentially identical definitions: a common jury is "the ordinary kind of jury by which issues of fact are generally tried, as distinguished from a special jury." The agreement between these sources reflects the straightforwardness of the term — it was not contested or complex, merely taxonomic.
Neither source elaborates significantly on the composition, size, or procedural rules governing the common jury, because those details were assumed to be governed by the general law of jury trial applicable across the board. This is a limitation researchers should recognize: if you need to know the rules that applied to the common jury in a specific jurisdiction and era, you must look to that jurisdiction's general jury practice materials, not to the definition of "common jury" itself.
Black's entry indicates that the definition continues beyond the excerpt provided ("1. As distinguished..."), suggesting the original edition offered at least some further contrast or elaboration. Researchers consulting the original Black's should review the full entry for any additional subcategories or distinctions drawn.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The common/special jury distinction was more formally developed in English practice than in most American jurisdictions, where statutory jury frameworks early on established a single default jury form. Researchers encountering these terms in colonial-era American sources should account for the possibility that English procedural categories were adopted nominally but applied with considerable local variation.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia — Mistrial and Hung Jury (criminal_212): addresses jury deliberation breakdown and structural jury function, relevant context for understanding how the common jury operates at trial.
---