thirdcrank wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 10:50am
My own experience of jury service including being the foreman didn't give me any confidence at all. Of course, I'm unable to report on our deliberations but I did spend a lot of time standing by in the canteen listening to discussions of people between cases etc and the thing that struck me most was the extent of the theorising about stuff which hadn't formed part of the evidence.
That was my experience too. A great deal of postulating by various jury members as to how DNA had got onto a particular piece of evidence, when the extremely circuitous route they suggested hadn't been suggested by the defence. I great deal of "what could have happened is....". Whereas the accused's legal team themselves offered practically no defence. The accused didn't take the witness stand, no alibi was offered, no explanation as to his movements that day. In fact the only words he, or any of his associates, family or friends uttered during the entire proceedings was "oh, for xxxx's sake", when, after we failed to reach a verdict and he was remanded back into custody, having already been on remand for about 18 months. The judge gave the prosecution a bit of ticking off for that. I followed the retrial, and he was retried and sentenced. Can't remember what the sentence was, but I expect he will have served most of it on remand. Which apparently has advantages for the accused/convict.
thirdcrank wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 10:50am
Re stiffer sentences, I think it's widely believed that they tend to reduce the likelihood of a guilty verdict.. This is part of the reason why defence advocates make such a big issue of the maximum possible sentence for the charge, rather than the mandatory guidelines. In "my" case, after I had delivered the guilty verdicts the beak said he knew we would be interested to know the sentence but sentencing would be deferred. However, because of the defendant's record he was subject to a minimum seven years, plus whatever he got for the current convictions. The reaction of my fellow jury members suggested to me that had they known about that, they would never have convicted. I believe there was quite a lot of discussion in our absence before the judge ruled we would not be told.
Again, exactly my experience, even down to the length of the sentence, on a different case. Sentencing was immediate, and because of previous convictions for exactly the same offence (already revealed to us before our deliberations), was a mandatory 7 year minimum. The judge had asked if we wanted to stay for sentencing, which we did. When we heard the 7 years announced there was a couple of audible gasps, and back in the jury room, collecting our coats and mobile phones, a few people expressed shock. I too think if they had known they might not have convicted. Of course it wouldn't have taken too long to search for sentencing guidelines, and we deliberated overnight. In fact I don't think that would have contravened the (now standard, I expect) judge's warnings not to search the internet for information "about this case'.
Isn't 12 Angry Men still a fantastic film though? Joseph Sweeney's logic at the outset is sound, and could actually apply in some jury rooms, maybe. And when Edward Binns threatens to "lay out" Lee J Cobb after he's been yelling at Joseph Sweeney, it's a lovely moment. And Lee J Cobb's breakdown. Some of Hollywood's best character actors giving some fantastic performances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)