Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

[Nessie]

I still reckon, as Jack said, that the questions were asked by the sensible ones, in an attempt to get the judge to explain that the behaviour of the fruitcake contingent was unacceptable.

Rolfe.

The judge said he would take a majority, so unless there were multi idiots in the jury,. the idiot could have been out voted.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The judge said he would take a majority, so unless there were multi idiots in the jury,. the idiot could have been out voted.

I think it's likely there were multiple idiots. With the list of questions you can even play the game of trying to work out what they were driving their fellow jurors crazy with.

One wanted to decide using some 'evidence' they'd googled but which hadn't been presented in court.

One was a religious nut who insisted that if a wife swore to obey her husband she's automatically under duress.

etc

 

[anglolawyer]

I doubt more than a fraction of the jury pool have read them - certainly less than would be likely to have seen details in more high profile cases. This is a big issue for political nerds but a non issue to the majority of the population.

I bet those texts played big in the entire press, from the tabs to the quality broadsheets. They were national news on TV as well. If they were ruled inadmissible on appeal I bet there would be some chance of chucking the whole thing out. I'll see if I can find something (i.e. case law).

 

[Rolfe]

I think it's likely there were multiple idiots. With the list of questions you can even play the game of trying to work out what they were driving their fellow jurors crazy with.

One wanted to decide using some 'evidence' they'd googled but which hadn't been presented in court.

One was a religious nut who insisted that if a wife swore to obey her husband she's automatically under duress.

etc

Another possibility is that there was one fruitcake who was very forceful and/or persuasive, and at least two dimwits who were bamboozled by the nonsense he was talking.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Another possibility is that there was one fruitcake who was very forceful and/or persuasive, and at least two dimwits who were bamboozled by the nonsense he was talking.

Rolfe.

Lord Woolf (former LCJ) on the Today programme speculated this morning in much the same terms as you.

 

[Nessie]

Is there anything to say what a jury can do about an idiot? Could they complain about that person to the judge?

 

[anglolawyer]

Is there anything to say what a jury can do about an idiot? Could they complain about that person to the judge?

Not about being an idiot. Only about rule breaches, like they spoke to someone else or they searched the internet. Being an idiot is not against the rules.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe someone was trying to do a 'Twelve Angry Men'

The 'Hancock' version that is.

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

 

[catsmate]

The BBC has reported on a series of 10 questions being posed to the judge including (if memory serves):

• Could a juror reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it - Judge, No
• Can the jury take into account religious beliefs (a religious duty to obey a husband) - Judge, no
• The judge was clear than jury members can make reasonable inference - whatever that means

It does tend towards a minority of holdouts for a not guilty verdict.

Been there.

What kind of idiotic juror asks if they can reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it?

An unfortunately common kind.

But the defence did not mention a religious reason for being compelled to obey him at all, so what the hell were the jury asking about it for?

The list of questions they ask should scare the crap out of any innocent person facing a jury trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/20/vicky-pryce-jury-can-reach-majority-verdict

Probably one of the jurors believed that, based on his/her beliefs, there was such a duty.
Remember in the UK jurors aren't subject to USAian style examinations before being empaneled.

That was what crossed my mind as well. I pictured one or more asking really stupid questions, others on the jury face palming when those questions were put to the Judge and they are now seething as to what a complete waste of time the past couple of weeks have been.

The reports of what the Judge has said

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...yce-trial-after-failing-to-reach-verdict.html

"fundamental deficits of understanding"

"The jury reached deadlock after sending the judge three separate notes containing 10 questions which suggested they were “struggling” with the most “basic concept” of trial by jury."

and "Quite apart from my concern about the absolute fundamental deficits of understanding which the questions demonstrate I wonder [given that the answer] is all there and has been there the whole time the extent to which anything said by me is going to be capable of getting them back on track again. “I am like Mr Edis in the position that after 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this late stage. Never.”

suggests there may have been more than one numpty. This question beggars belief

"Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?”

Thankfully the Judge has given up with that lot and sent them home.

The problem of jury trials - sometimes we choose a bunch of numpties:

The judge was pretty scathing about their basic incompetence. Asking questions such as "what is reasonable doubt" (judge's answer - it is doubt which is reasonable" ) probably didn't inspire confidence....

Meh, the whole "reasonable doubt" bit can be difficult for some people to understand. What's the difference between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" doubt?
Speculation: at least one juror proposed an idea/scenario that most of the others considered beyond "reasonable" and wanted the judge to clarify the situation.

Personally this case makes me plan to avoid a jury trial if I'm ever in the position.

 

[catsmate]

Another possibility is that there was one fruitcake who was very forceful and/or persuasive, and at least two dimwits who were bamboozled by the nonsense he was talking.

Rolfe.

Yes this seems plausible. Reminds me of 'Strong Poison' and that book's excellent chapter on the jury.

Is there anything to say what a jury can do about an idiot? Could they complain about that person to the judge?

Stupidity isn't a crime but an offense against the various Orders and Regulations could be.
IIRC we were instructed to inform the judge of any inappropriate activities by other jurors. These weren't detailed further, other than discussing the case with others.

 

[Rolfe]

That's interesting, I was thinking about Strong Poison, and Miss Climpson just sitting there refusing to agree the verdict.

Of course she was right.

Rolfe.

 

[Matthew Best]

The judge said he would take a majority, so unless there were multi idiots in the jury,. the idiot could have been out voted.

Majority usually means 10-2 in juries, so you'd need three hold-outs to hang the jury.

 

[Agatha]

I also have been thinking of Miss Climpson in Strong Poison!

What a waste of public money this farce has been; reading the transcript of the Shipman trial it was clear that the judge in that case gave explicit instructions about what the jury could or could not consider, and he did that every day, not just before sending them to consider the verdict. The judge in this case should have been much more explicit about what is considered evidence and the jury member's individual duty not to google or discuss the case outside the jury box.

 

[SezMe]

Remember in the UK jurors aren't subject to USAian style examinations before being empaneled.

I'm surprised. How are juries selected? Imagine a scenario in which a jury is empaneled without questions then it turns out the defendant's mother is on the jury. Guess what - not guilty!

 

[nathan]

I'm surprised. How are juries selected? Imagine a scenario in which a jury is empaneled without questions then it turns out the defendant's mother is on the jury. Guess what - not guilty!

It surprised me, when I served. No quiz, nothing. Just randomly selected from the electoral role. The probability of being selected does appear to be much less than in the US -- given by the number of time my US colleagues have taken time for it, (and the corresponding lack for UK colleagues).

 

[Rat]

I'm surprised. How are juries selected? Imagine a scenario in which a jury is empaneled without questions then it turns out the defendant's mother is on the jury. Guess what - not guilty!

I think that if you were the defendant's mother, or someone similarly unsuitable, you would be expected to declare that and you would be put on a different case. I'm not sure what penalty there would be if you did not declare a real interest.

ETA: Thinking further about it, I'm fairly sure that it is explained when you arrive that you must declare any interest, and this BBC news article gives more details of the process.

 

[SezMe]

Informative post, Rat. Thanks.

 

[nathan]

I think that if you were the defendant's mother, or someone similarly unsuitable, you would be expected to declare that and you would be put on a different case. I'm not sure what penalty there would be if you did not declare a real interest.

Oh, gosh, I'd forgotten. I think it you're an expert in some field that's important to the case, then you can't be on the jury -- you'd certainly need to declare it.

 

[catsmate]

That's interesting, I was thinking about Strong Poison, and Miss Climpson just sitting there refusing to agree the verdict.

Of course she was right.

Rolfe.

It was an interesting insight into the processes involved.

"Well, the woman I know stuck out for it that Miss Vane wasn't that sort of person. They bullied her a good deal, of course, because she couldn't lay a finger on any real weakness in the chain of evidence, but she said the prisoner's demeanor was part of the evidence and that she was entitled to take that into consideration. Fortunately, she is a tough, thin, elderly woman with a sound digestion and a militant High-Church conscience of remarkable staying-power, and her wind is excellent. She let 'em all gallop themselves dead, and then said she still didn't believe it and wasn't going to say she did."

"Very useful," said Sir Impey. "A person who can believe all the articles of the Christian faith is not going to boggle over a trifle of adverse evidence. But we can never hope for a whole jury-box full of ecclesiastical diehards. How about the other woman and the man?"

"Well, the woman was rather unexpected. She was the stout, prosperous party who keeps a sweet-shop. She said she didn't think the case was proved, and that it was perfectly possible that Boyes had taken the stuff himself, or that his cousin had given it to him. She was influenced, rather oddly, by the fact that she had attended one or two arsenic trials, and had not been satisfied by the verdict in some other cases — notably the Seddon trial. She has no opinion of men in general (she has buried her third) and she disbelieves all expert evidence on principle. She said that, personally, she thought Miss Vane might have done it, but she wouldn't really hang a dog on medical evidence. At first she was ready to vote with the majority, but she took a dislike to the foreman, who tried to bear her down by his male authority, and eventually she said she was going to back up my friend Miss Climpson."

"The man was the artist, and the only person who really understood the kind of life these people were leading. He believed
your client's version of the quarrel, and said that, if the girl really felt like that about the man, the last thing she would want to do would be to kill him. She'd
rather stand back and watch him ache, like the man with the hollow tooth in the comic song. He was also able to believe the whole story about purchasing the poisons, which to the others, of course, seemed extremely feeble. He also said that Boyes, from what he had heard, was a conceited prig, and that anybody who disposed of him was doing a public service. He had had the misfortune to read some of his books, and considered the man an excrescence and a public nuisance.
Actually he thought it more than likely that he had committed suicide, and if anybody was prepared to take that point of view he was ready to second it. He also alarmed the jury by saying that he was accustomed to late hours and a stale atmosphere, and had not the slightest objection to sitting up all night. Miss Climpson also said that, in a righteous cause, a little personal discomfort was a trifle, and added that her religion had trained her to fasting. At that point, the third woman had hysterics and another man, who had an important deal to put through next day, lost his temper, so, to prevent bodily violence, the foreman said he thought they had better agree to disagree. So that's how it was."

I'm surprised. How are juries selected? Imagine a scenario in which a jury is empaneled without questions then it turns out the defendant's mother is on the jury. Guess what - not guilty!

Selected from the Electoral Register (in Ireland), sent a letter to appear giving some info (what to do if you were unable to do so for example). You turn up on a Monday morning and are assigned to a pool. You then get called for various juries, are given a precis of the case and told to inform the judge if you knew anyone involved, or had connections to companies or persons involved. The counsel have (three IIRC) peremptory challenges that can be used against jurors but can't ask them questions.
I think the UKian process is pretty similar.
I've served twice as a juror; the second time was straightforward I was finished on Monday afternoon but the first time was more complicated, I was challenged once and had links to three of the cases so I was sent back to the pool and then served from Tuesday to Friday on a rather interesting case.
That situation had some similarities with the episode in Strong Poison mentioned and convinced me to opt out of jury trial where possible.

Oh, gosh, I'd forgotten. I think it you're an expert in some field that's important to the case, then you can't be on the jury -- you'd certainly need to declare it.

I know if you have connections to the defendants, victims, witnesses, counsel et cetera you need to declare it. I'm not aware of any requirement to declare relevant expertise.

 

[Rat]

I've served twice as a juror; the second time was straightforward I was finished on Monday afternoon but the first time was more complicated, I was challenged once and had links to three of the cases so I was sent back to the pool and then served from Tuesday to Friday on a rather interesting case.

Three of them? Do you hang around with a lot of criminals?

I know if you have connections to the defendants, victims, witnesses, counsel et cetera you need to declare it. I'm not aware of any requirement to declare relevant expertise.

No, I doubt it too, although I am told that US lawyers may often exclude people with expertise in whatever science they're intending to blind the jury with.