Definition
A good jury is a jury whose members are drawn from a special jury list — a curated roster of persons considered particularly qualified or socially prominent for jury service. Distinguished from an ordinary jury (sometimes called a common jury), a good jury was composed of individuals selected from a subset of the general jury pool deemed suitable for cases requiring heightened competence, social standing, or both. The term is archaic in modern American practice but appears in English and early common law sources, where the distinction between ordinary and special panels carried procedural and class-based significance.
---
Common Confusion
GOOD JURY vs. SPECIAL JURY: These terms are closely related and often used interchangeably in historical sources, but there is a technical distinction worth observing. A special jury was the formal procedural device — a panel summoned at a party's request, typically for a fee, drawn from a list of qualified persons. A good jury is best understood as the resulting panel: the jury actually constituted from that special list. In practice, historical dictionaries and cases do not always maintain the distinction, and researchers will encounter both terms referring to the same panel. Do not read a meaningful difference into the choice of terminology unless context supports it.
GOOD JURY vs. GRAND JURY: The phonetic and visual similarity creates occasional confusion in older transcriptions and indexes. These are entirely different institutions. A grand jury is an investigative body that decides whether to indict; a good jury is a trial (petit) jury drawn from a special list. The confusion is most likely in handwritten records or OCR-processed historical documents where "grand" and "good" may be misread.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter "good jury" almost exclusively in English legal sources from roughly the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries and in American sources drawing on English procedure during the colonial and early national periods. After the gradual abolition of special jury practice in England (largely completed by the Juries Act 1949) and its quiet disappearance from American practice much earlier, the term ceased to have operational meaning.
Several research traps apply:
First, indexing inconsistency. Historical case reporters and court records may index a "good jury" under "jury" generally, under "special jury," or not at all. A search limited to "good jury" as a phrase will miss the bulk of relevant material; researchers should always run parallel searches for "special jury" and "struck jury" to capture the full picture.
Second, the class dimension. The good jury's membership criteria were explicitly tied to social rank and property qualifications — freeholders, merchants, and men of similar standing. This means that in any historical dispute where a party requested or was denied a good jury, the procedural record intersects with questions of economic status and access to justice. Social history researchers will find this intersection significant.
Third, the citation in Black's Law Dictionary to L. R. 5 C. P. 155 (a Law Reports, Common Pleas volume) signals English origins. American researchers should not assume the term carried identical weight or identical procedures in early American courts, where special jury practice was adopted unevenly across colonies and states.
Fourth, the term is essentially extinct in modern legal writing. If it appears in a contemporary document, treat it as an error, an affectation, or a direct quotation from historical sources — not as a live procedural concept.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines a good jury as "a jury of which the members are selected from the list of special jurors," citing L. R. 5 C. P. 155. This is the primary and essentially only historical dictionary definition available, and it is characteristically compressed. Black's entry does useful work in tying the concept to the special juror list as the operative mechanism but leaves the social and procedural context entirely implicit.
What the historical dictionaries collectively omit: the class dynamics driving special jury practice, the party's right (in English law) to pay for a special panel, the "striking" procedure by which counsel on each side eliminated names to arrive at the final panel, and the gradual legislative curtailment of the practice. Researchers who rely only on the dictionary entry will miss that a good jury was not simply a more capable jury in some neutral sense — it was a jury whose membership was filtered through criteria that systematically favored parties with resources and social connections.
The English common law background is essential context. Special jury practice developed as a device to ensure that complex commercial or politically sensitive cases were heard by jurors with relevant expertise or social standing. The good jury was the output of that system, and its reputation for competence was inseparable from its reputation for exclusivity.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The good jury as a formal institution is a creature of English law with limited and uneven reception in American jurisdictions. Some early American states permitted special jury practice by statute; others did not. The concept has no meaningful presence in modern American federal or state procedure. Researchers working in English legal history will find substantially richer source material than those working in American legal history.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Grand Jury — Function, Procedure, and Powers (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Grand Jury — Fifth Amendment in Grand Jury Proceedings (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Note: These entries address the grand jury, a distinct institution. They are linked because researchers who encounter "good jury" in an unfamiliar source may be attempting to resolve a confusion between the two terms. For the special jury procedure that underlies the good jury concept, no directly matching encyclopedia entry exists in the current corpus.
---