Reasonable doubt Mark 2

[661-Pete]

In a fairly minor case, after we had delivered Not Guilty, we were told about the defendant's 'previous'. But I don't consider that to have implied any reproof against the jury: indeed the judge and both counsels thanked us for our work. AFAIK we delivered the 'correct' verdict against the charge, based on the evidence we heard.

Things may have changed, but I understand that the jury may interrupt court proceedings at any time - they don't have to wait until being sent out. One does this by signalling to the usher, who will then pass a written note to the judge. It's then up to the judge to decide whether something needs clarification. And the jury may ask for a trial to be abandoned, and deliver a Not Guilty verdict, at any time after the Prosecution have presented their case. In other words, they do not have to wait until the end of the Defence, nor the judge's summing-up. Of course, if it's a Guilty verdict, they've got to sit it out to the bitter end.

There were no jury interruptions in the two cases I sat on, nor do I recall us asking any questions of the judge during our deliberations. But I don't think either of these things are signs of an incompetent jury.

Of course there was no internet then. A lot has changed, since.

[thirdcrank]

I had thought that reading the defendant's convictions out after an acquittal was unusaul (to the point of being fairly unique ) It sounds as though I was wrong but what purpose does it serve to inform the jury that they have just acquitted somebody with previous convictions? IMO it's at least pointless and in the case I mentioned, an insult to the members of the jury.

Individual jury members can stop the proceedings and send a note to the judge. I know the reaction I got when I raised my hand (prior to alerting the judge about being unable to hear the evidence.) I suspect that jurors telling the judge they could not understand would be told to wait to the end when it would all become clear. Or not. Nobody has any informed idea about how often the verdict is a "true" verdict and how often it's been arrived at in some other way.

[wrangler_rover]

On the subject of jury service, I did it in the mid 1990s and can honestly say that I hated every minute of it.
My main moan is that when the jury is being picked, the defence looks at the potential jurors and chooses 12 from the assembled jurous. What if it is a heavy trial, murder, rape or major fraud for example and one of the jurors chosen is an 18 year old who is in the sixth form, has never worked and has few life experiences. There is no mechanism for a juror to say "Stop, this is too much for me and I don't feel I can cope with it."
I didn't enjoy jury service, I didn't want the responsibility for being involved in making a decision that would be life changing for somebody else, and I don't want to be involved in it again.
I guess that if I am called for jury service again, I should dress as smartly as possible, suit & tie giving the impression I am a true blue daily mail reader and hope the defence don't like the look of me.

[thirdcrank]

wrangler_rover

The system of objecting to jurors has been substantially changed since you were involved.

Before that stage is even reached, a far wider section of society is now liable to be called for jury service (even serving police officers are in the pool) and the grounds for exemption are fewer. Somebody with a good reason not to serve on a specific occasion can get a deferral, but normally only one.

A defendant's right of peremptory challenge has also been abolished. Once upon a time, a defendant could object to (IIRC) seven potential jurors so half a dozen people on a joint charge had around 40 between them. This was later reduced to three but it's gone altogether. The defence retains the right to challenge a potential juror "for cause" but that is pretty rare. (If a defendant recognised a police officer who had previously locked him up, that might be good cause to object. Owning a suit would not be.)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jury_vetting/#an01

I don't think there's scope for somebody to say they are not up to the needs of the duty to do jury service. The Courts Service does try to ensure that people with other commitments are not required to sit on trials which are expected to run for weeks or even months, but that's not a right. I suspect that it's often possible to get kicked off a jury by displaying such prejudiced views to fellow jurors that they report the situation to the judge.

[Shootist]

I would suspect that if a potential juror could manage to introduce a suggestion that he was a BNP supporter that would get him out of jury service. It can certainly get you out of quite a few jobs.