If a jury has been demanded, the first step of the trial is to impanel the jurors, who are selected at random from lists of eligible citizens. The court and lawyers for each party will- question the prospective jurors to determine their fairness and impartiality. If any of them is found to be biased, he may be challenged for cause and excused. A certain number of peremptory challenges, for which no cause need be given, may also be exercised to reject potential jurors.

After the jurors have been sworn, the lawyers make opening statements to familiarize the jury with the essential facts that each side expects to prove. Following these statements ,plaintiff’s lawyer will present the evidence by examining his witnesses and producing the documents or other exhibits. Each witness is first questioned by the lawyer who has called that witness—this is the direct examination; then by the lawyer for the other side—cross examinationi this may be followed by re-direct and re-cross examination, and even further stages. Each side may object to the evidence that is thought to be inadmissible under the rules of evidence. The judge rules on the objections and maintains some control over the length and tenor of the examination.

When the examinations of plaintiff's witnesses are over，defendant’s lawyer may ask for a directed verdict. A motion for a directed verdict asks the judge to rule that the nonmoving party has failed to introduce enough evidence for the jury to find in his favor.2 If the motion is overruled, the defendant will present his own witnesses, who will be exposed to the same process of direct and cross-examination.3 When neither party has any additional evidence, either or >both may move for a directed verdict. If these motions are denied, the case must be submitted to the jury.

The lawyers and the judge then retire for a conference to consider the matter of jury instructions. Each lawyer may submit proposed instructions, but the judge decides on the content.

Then the lawyers will make their final arguments to the jury. After the arguments.

the judge will instruct the jury on the applicable law on each issue, the rules for determining the credibility of witnesses，and state who has the burden of proof. In other words, the judge tells the jury that if it finds certain {acts, its verdict should be for the plaintiff. If it {ails to find these facts, the verdict should be for the defendant.

Following the instruction, the jury retires to reach its verdict. If a required number of jurors are able to reach a verdict, judgment will be entered accordingly. If no verdict is reached, the jury is said to be hung and a new trial before a different jury is necessary.

A dissatisfied party after the judgment may make some post-trial motions, such as a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (a judgment n. o. v. ) or a motion for a new trial. Such motions may be granted if the judge feels that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, or is erroneous as a matter of law.

1. What happens if one party wishes to have the facts tried by a jury and the other party does not?
2. How are jurors selected? What is the main concern in jury selection?
3. What are the methods that ensure the impartiality of the jury?
4. What is direct examination? And cross examination?
5. What is the role of the judge at trial?
6. Before the case is submitted to the jury, what will the judge and the lawyers do?
7. What is jury instruction? On what must the judge instruct the jury?
8. What are the motions available to the parties during and after trial?
9. What is a hung jury? What happens to the case if the jury is hung?
10. When will a motion for a new trial be granted?

In the conduct of a trial, rules of evidence govern admissibility of testimony and exhibits and establish which facts may be presented to the jury. Each rule of evidence is based on some policy consideration and the desire to give each party an opportunity to present his evidence and contentions without unduly taking advantage of the other party. Rules of evidence were not created to serve as a stumbling block to meritorious litigants or to create unwarranted roadblocks to justice. On the contrary, rules of evidence were created and should be applied to ensure fair play and to aid in the goal of having controversies determined on their merits. Modern rules of evidence are liberal in the sense that they allow the introduction of most evidence that may contribute to the search for truth.