Jury service

[pete75]

"Twelve Angry Men" is a excellent film. It's message is that one man can make a difference, so it should give you some encouragement.
I get the impression that modern-day juries are more or less told by the judge what verdict should be delivered. I suppose, it turn, the judge is steered by sentencing guidelines.
I've also been told that you should prepare yourself to meet amongst your fellow jurors some of the thickest people you will ever meet.
The cases could be quite distressing. I wonder how this is dealt with? Would a nun be made to view gross pics in a murder trial for example? I don't think I'd like to have my mind forcibly polluted. I've never recovered from walking in on a 'Silence of the Lambs" screening at the wrong moment.

No the judge doesn't more or less tell the jury what verdict to deliver. If his summing up was that biased and a guilty verdict returned there would be an almost immediate appeal. Again if the judge passes a sentence out of line with guidelines it will almost certainly be appealed.
Every juror sees and hears all the evidence of the case. How would you expect the system to work otherwise if 12 people are to make a decision and they've not all seen and heard exactly the same evidence?

[Cyril Haearn]

I seem to remember often reading something like: *the judge directed the jury.. *

Anyone here worked as a magistrate?

[Bonefishblues]

The Judge instructs the Jury on the points of law to consider in their verdict. We had a particularly interesting case in Crown Court about the application of the Firearms Act to a particular device.

The Jury dynamic when we retired to consider our verdict was also very interesting - dividing into the "well it is, it's just obvious that it is" and the "the Judge said that these are the criiteria in the law, so can we review against these".

I suspect all cases aren't quite as interesting

[pete75]

I seem to remember often reading something like: *the judge directed the jury.. *

Anyone here worked as a magistrate?

They can direct the jury in certain rare circumstances but where a jury is meant to consider a verdict they are meant to give a fair and unbiased summing up.

[Cunobelin]

The Judge instructs the Jury on the points of law to consider in their verdict. We had a particularly interesting case in Crown Court about the application of the Firearms Act to a particular device.

The Jury dynamic when we retired to consider our verdict was also very interesting - dividing into the "well it is, it's just obvious that it is" and the "the Judge said that these are the criiteria in the law, so can we review against these".

I suspect all cases aren't quite as interesting

Ours was similar in that we had to decide on whether something was intended (prosecution) 0r accidental (defence)

Jury dynamics are as you say interesting, but be careful...

We had a couple of younger and quite members and during the process I would make point of involving them and asking them what their opinion was, as opposed to the vociferous statements of a couple of members

Trouble was when it came to the decision it was decided that this made me a good Foreman

[thirdcrank]

From my own extremely limited experience of this I'd say the sooner the foreman is chosen, the better. Apart from anything else, no point in wasting a lot of time on that decision. There's a reason why most committee meetings and the like have a chairman and this is no different. It's probably more important because the main business is making a binary decision G or NG. There's no third way. It needs somebody who is willing and able to listen to all other eleven jurors, identify areas of disagreement and doubt, and to work on them using areas of consensus as a basis for a more general agreement. Facilitator is perhaps the modern word.

I've heard anecdotes about juries ending up in several arguing groups.

It's important for all jurors to remember their oath / affirmation includes the key phrase

I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

[Bonefishblues]

From my own extremely limited experience of this I'd say the sooner the foreman is chosen, the better. Apart from anything else, no point in wasting a lot of time on that decision. There's a reason why most committee meetings and the like have a chairman and this is no different. It's probably more important because the main business is making a binary decision G or NG. There's no third way. It needs somebody who is willing and able to listen to all other eleven jurors, identify areas of disagreement and doubt, and to work on them using areas of consensus as a basis for a more general agreement. Facilitator is perhaps the modern word.

I've heard anecdotes about juries ending up in several arguing groups.

It's important for all jurors to remember their oath / affirmation includes the key phrase

I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence

Our didn't argue so much as one group had to remind the other to, as you cite, consider the bleedin' evidence as the Judge reminded us. Here is the definition of a firearm. Does this meet these criteria? (It didn't, we decided, and Brer Judge said he could understand how we had reached that conclusion, which was nice)

[thirdcrank]

"Our" defendant was a career drug dealer, fairly recently released from prison (as we were told at the start of the trial) facing a seven year minimum if we convicted him (which we were not told until I had delivered our guilty verdict.)

Standing to deliver our verdict, I was aware of the inherent unfairness to the defendant of a police pensioner having that role, only aggravated by the defendant being black. I felt uneasy then and that hasn't diminished much with time. I take comfort from knowing that our verdicts were based on the evidence. I'm confident that in the extremely unlikely event of some covert recording of our deliberations emerging, it would support what I am saying.

[Cyril Haearn]

"Our" defendant was a career drug dealer, fairly recently released from prison (as we were told at the start of the trial) facing a seven year minimum if we convicted him (which we were not told until I had delivered our guilty verdict.)

Standing to deliver our verdict, I was aware of the inherent unfairness to the defendant of a police pensioner having that role, only aggravated by the defendant being black. I felt uneasy then and that hasn't diminished much with time. I take comfort from knowing that our verdicts were based on the evidence. I'm confident that in the extremely unlikely event of some covert recording of our deliberations emerging, it would support what I am saying.

As a police pensioner maybe you were particularly suitable. But maybe one point of the jury system is that the jurors are not *experts*

Guilty or not guilty? What if it is a draw, 6:6? I can well imagine being unable to decide, in Scotland there is *not proven*, what is there in W&E?

[thirdcrank]

... Guilty or not guilty? What if it is a draw, 6:6? I can well imagine being unable to decide, in Scotland there is *not proven*, what is there in W&E?

A retrial or the case being dropped.

[axel_knutt]

The cases could be quite distressing. I wonder how this is dealt with? Would a nun be made to view gross pics in a murder trial for example?

There was a program about this on TV a few years ago. Apparently there are numerous people who end up having mental breakdowns or PTSD after seeing evidence in court cases, and the reason it was on TV is that they are not allowed to seek any medical help because it would be contempt of court.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psycho ... ice-trauma

[thirdcrank]

Attending court is a stressful experience for most people, even without harrowing evidence. *

The link doesn't seem to touch on the contempt point. I think it's important to remember that jurors are not prohibited from discussing the case as it was presented in court - that information is in the public domain. The prohibition is on revealing what happened in the jury room. I can see that many people don't like heated discussion and also may not be well-suited to achieving consensus in making decisions.

* I remember as a young detective being at Leeds Crown Court and during a lull, I had a chat with a barrister. Not a sprog by any means but he'd recently been a witness in a magistrates' court - due care prosecution after a crash IIRC - and he was telling me how difficult he had found the experience of being in the witness box.

[Abradable Chin]

I seem to remember often reading something like: *the judge directed the jury.. *

Directed verdict
He can also tell you what evidence you can or cannot use in reaching your verdict.

[LollyKat]

Juries have been known to ignore the judge's directions - e.g. the Clive Ponting case in 1985.

[thirdcrank]

Since juries don't have to explain their verdicts - indeed they are prohibited from doing so - nobody other than the jurors themselves knows how a verdict was reached. The judge explains the relevant law, reminds them of the evidence they have heard and the rest is up to them.

IIRC, in the Ponting case, the judge "summed up strongly in favour of conviction."

Also IIRC, in the recent trial of the alleged murderer of Jo Cox, the defendant refused to enter a plea ("mute of malice" unless the expression has changed) so a plea of not guilty was entered on his behalf. The prosecution evidence was heard, witnesses were cross-examined in a limited way (counsel cannot introduce allegations which will not later be supported with evidence) and then the defence offered no evidence. Even in a case like this, the jury has the possibility of returning a not guilty verdict.

An Old Bailey jury took just over 90 minutes to convict the 53-year-old loner of murdering the 41-year-old mother-of-two and Remain campaigner as she arrived for a constituency surgery in Birstall, West Yorkshire, a week before the EU referendum.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... der_of_MP/