In my historical novel, "The Posthumous Wife," the congregation of the Torah Talmud calls for a bet din, that is, a rabbinical trial, to determine the truth or falsehood of several life-and-death matters. A bet din is a panel of rabbis, scholars of sacred texts and analyses of theological matters (similar to priests and ministers in Christian churches).

In the past, many, if not most, European "trials" were conducted under the auspices of religion. The European Inquisition was a trial by priests--it was intended to ferret out heresy and blasphemy, but most "crimes" were viewed as sins and they were often handled by the Inquisition, too. Political crimes were dealt with by the civil authorities, usually without any form of trial--other than the trials of torture, fire, and water.

In my research into the history of jury trials, I've found that the Greeks were the first to institute a sort of jury trial. They determined a defendant's fate by "the black ball" method. Every citizen cast a vote by dropping either a white or black marble into a container. A majority of black balls was a conviction. It was a jury of peers--if the defendant was a citizen. If not, my guess is he just died by the sword.

After that, though, the next iteration of the jury was brought to us courtesy of the Vikings (yes, those marauders were democrats). Every Viking who was the head of a household would sit on a jury panel in all disputes. In some of the sagas, these householders included women, too. I believe that when the Danes invaded Britain they brought this tradition with them.

So, we really owe the right to a trial by jury to those wild and woolly Vikings. Thank you, Bluetooth, et al.

(It just occurred to me that it is rather odd that the Bill of Rights is so specific about certain aspects of trials. Why were the framers of the Constitution worried that these aspects of British Common Law might not be respected in the United States when they left so many other aspects of common law unstated and implicit?)