A judge usually sat in the Black Country used to help the jury. He would often do a little cough and subtly shake his head when the defendent was giving evidence and subtly nod for prosecution witnesses.
Can you provide any evidence for this, such as a newspaper report (or something similar) published at the time?
I am on a jury this week. Obviously I can't say anything about it. Although I can say that lunch was better than expected. We had been told we would be provided with sandwiches, but got a paper bag each containing a packet of excellent sandwiches, a packet of crisps, a generously sized flapjack, an apple and a carton of apple juice. Plus there's a coffee machine in the room, and a rather sad assortment of jammy dodgers and oat biscuits. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's sandwiches already - I've ordered ham and cheese with mustard mayo.
It's the first time I've ever been cited - for most of my adult life I was ineligible as my name was on the Roll of Solicitors for Scotland. I last practised as a solicitor in 1993, but I paid the annual sum to retain membership for a couple of decades after that. No one who is on the Roll, or who has been on the Roll within the last five years is eligible.
That's interesting as I was moaning to a solicitor friend this morning about my bad luck in being selected for a jury and he said he had been called to be on one.
So apparently one can serve on a jury in England even if one is a practicing solicitor.
That's interesting as I was moaning to a solicitor friend this morning about my bad luck in being selected for a jury and he said he had been called to be on one.
So apparently one can serve on a jury in England even if one is a practicing solicitor.
The systems are different in Scotland compared to England and Wales (different again in Northern Ireland). In Scotland, the long list of ineligible persons includes solicitors, officers of the court, police officers and many others (pdf file giving information for jurors in Scotland). My understanding is that in England and Wales court officials (even judges) must serve if called (but not in any court where they serve), likewise police officers (in an area where they don't work) etc.
It feels like there's a fair amount of misunderstanding as to the role of a judge in a jury trial.
In modern times, in E&W and likely other jurisdictions of a similar mindset, it is generally accepted that judges cannot influence or direct juries to guilty verdicts.
Of course they can't and the transcripts of the trials will show that there was no influence
Do the transcripts record "at this point the judge coughed and shook his head"? I thought that they only record what words are spoken, and by whom. The additional information a jury may observe - eg: the body language of the witness, or facial expressions of the defendant - won't be recorded but may well influence the jury in their deliberations. And, the sort of reaction you suggested a judge showed could also influence a jury in a manner unrecorded in the transcripts.
I suspect this is bullshit because the barristers are literally looking at the judge much of the time and the defence would obviously think it was in the interests of their client to report judicial misconduct which led to a guilty verdict
Second if there were journalists in court (which there were many more of in the past) this would be a massive story.
Third if the judge did this over many different cases in his career this would mean many unsafe convictions.
Most of all if this was common knowledge to the extent that it was repeated by random people on social media, then the conspiracy would have to be massive to keep it quiet.
The judicial and court system is fucked up but it isn't that fucked up.
I am harking back to the days when people wanted to see criminals convicted. When far less crime was committed.
It feels like there's a fair amount of misunderstanding as to the role of a judge in a jury trial.
In modern times, in E&W and likely other jurisdictions of a similar mindset, it is generally accepted that judges cannot influence or direct juries to guilty verdicts.
Of course they can't and the transcripts of the trials will show that there was no influence
Do the transcripts record "at this point the judge coughed and shook his head"? I thought that they only record what words are spoken, and by whom. The additional information a jury may observe - eg: the body language of the witness, or facial expressions of the defendant - won't be recorded but may well influence the jury in their deliberations. And, the sort of reaction you suggested a judge showed could also influence a jury in a manner unrecorded in the transcripts.
I suspect this is bullshit because the barristers are literally looking at the judge much of the time and the defence would obviously think it was in the interests of their client to report judicial misconduct which led to a guilty verdict
Second if there were journalists in court (which there were many more of in the past) this would be a massive story.
Third if the judge did this over many different cases in his career this would mean many unsafe convictions.
Most of all if this was common knowledge to the extent that it was repeated by random people on social media, then the conspiracy would have to be massive to keep it quiet.
The judicial and court system is fucked up but it isn't that fucked up.
I am harking back to the days when people wanted to see criminals convicted. When far less crime was committed.
And a bit of influencing the jury to make sure the bloke you were sure did it got put away, if the normal rule of law wouldn't do the job, was therefore OK?
Tell me, if you commit a criminal act to "ensure" a "criminal" is convicted, shouldn't those who "want to see criminals convicted" also be coming after you?
Seems like @Telford believes that a Brummy (probably imaginary) judge could/should break the law to undermine jury trials. Because there was less crime in the old days.
Once again, I sincerely doubt that this ever happened. But from what I'm hearing, at least one person in this discussion appears to be unsuited to being a juror.
For this reason if nothing else: jurors swear/affirm that they will make a decision based on the evidence. In front of the public and a court of law, with various penalties if they don't up to and including prison.
I don't see how one can honestly make that oath/affirmation whilst also believing that the jury can/should be influenced by the judge with regard to the efficacy of the presented evidence.
I am harking back to the days when people wanted to see criminals convicted.
Isn't that always the case? Has that changed? People want to see criminals convicted. But, that also includes making sure the innocent aren't convicted (and, by extension the guilty getting away with it). That's why we need the legal system to be fair and unbiased, and for the police to properly investigate crimes, the prosecution to present the evidence, the defence to have full access to that evidence, judges to not show favour, and juries to do their job ... otherwise we will see the innocent convicted and the guilty not brought to trial.
That's interesting as I was moaning to a solicitor friend this morning about my bad luck in being selected for a jury and he said he had been called to be on one.
So apparently one can serve on a jury in England even if one is a practicing solicitor.
For many years you couldn't but the law was changed not all that long ago. The old view was alleged to be that they didn't want jurors who thought they knew it all.
Somebody I know got called for jury service in the spring of 2020 just as Covid was getting going. This was for service quite a long way from where they lived and in a place that was difficult for them to get to.
They were in their early to mid seventies and in the highest category of those required to shield. Initially a minor court official told them, hard luck, that was irrelevant. They kicked up a fuss and eventually they did manage to get deferred on those grounds. It was made clear to them that this was only temporary and they'd be expected to do their bit fairly soon. As far as I know, they've escaped so far, and I think they're now over the age limit and have escaped.
I was surprised to be selected for my case (attempted murder)--usually the attorneys dispose of anybody who holds a graduate degree, and you get kicked off during voire dire. I'm pretty sure that the only reason I got through was that the first challenge was identifying all the women in the pool who had been victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives, or witnessed it in their families--and that got rid of pretty much all of us. They couldn't have an all-male jury...
I've never quite understood the process of trying to stack a jury as portrayed on US crime dramas (though I'm sure the reality is quite different). In the UK the only basis for someone being excluded from a particular jury would be if they had direct personal knowledge of that particular case or people involved (eg: they're a friend or relation to the victim, accused, or one of the witnesses), when I've been called a brief description of the case was read out before the ballot, and a short period allowed for potential jurors to approach the clerk and explain why they thought they shouldn't serve on that jury - if the clerk agreed that was sufficient direct knowledge then their name would be pulled from the ballot for that trial.
I'm not sure that's quite true @Alan Cresswell - in the trial where I was a juror, the judge made it clear that anyone who was familiar with the place where the alleged offence was said to have occurred would also have to stand down. Maybe that is something else that is different in Scotland verses England and Wales, I have no idea.
Also as far as I understand, the jurors in my trial would have had to discuss their knowledge directly with the judge. There were court ushers who kept things moving but I think it would have been a discussion with the judge with regard to exclusion.
Which in itself was a bit of a daft aspect of the trial. For one thing, I was reflecting afterwards, there's a high element of trust in getting jurors to own up to things. For another, the implication is that only direct personal relationships are relevant. Whereas it seems to me that a juror may well be influenced unduely by indirect relationships they were not aware of at the beginning of the trial.
For example a witness could be a neighbour of a family relative (and one might be worried about repercussions). Or a policeman introduced later in the trial might have interacted with a juror in a racist way in the past.
At the point when asked, the juror may honestly not be aware of these things, it is much more difficult to know whether to alert the judge/clerk/usher hours or days or weeks into the evidence.
In Canada we have a practice of reading out the names of potential witnesses beforehand, as well as other parties involved (e.g. counsel) so that jurors are in a better position to know in advance if there’s going to be an issue. That said, I can think of a case where a juror realized only near the end of the trial that they knew the accused’s mother. They raised the issue with the trial judge, who asked the juror if they still thought they could judge the case fairly and let the juror stay on the jury when they said they thought they could. (The jury ultimately found the accused guilty.)
There might also be a difference between the Sheriff Court (where I was for the occasions where this happened) and High Court (where there was some last minute delay and the jury dismissed after hanging around all morning because the trial they were called for wouldn't be happening in the period we were called for).
And, of course, talking to the clerk might well have been a step towards talking to the Sheriff, I don't know as I didn't know anything about the town centre or the man arrested for walking around brandishing a machete so didn't need to talk to anyone. The response of the clerks could easily have been "we'll go have a chat with the Sheriff".
I suspect that it's not very unusual when you select 15 people from a population of a million-ish that there might be prior relationship between one of those and one of the witnesses (who will also mostly be from that same population of a million-ish), and for that not to be known in advance. I'm sure that an honest juror would alert the courts of this should it occur. Quite possibly one of the contingencies in which an alternate juror could be called.
Seems like @Telford believes that a Brummy (probably imaginary) judge could/should break the law to undermine jury trials. Because there was less crime in the old days.
I've read @Telford's posts and he didn't say that that should happen but observed that it had happened without giving his view on the matter.
I suspect that it's not very unusual when you select 15 people from a population of a million-ish that there might be prior relationship between one of those and one of the witnesses (who will also mostly be from that same population of a million-ish), and for that not to be known in advance. I'm sure that an honest juror would alert the courts of this should it occur. Quite possibly one of the contingencies in which an alternate juror could be called.
Again maybe this is a difference between E&W and Scotland, but I don't think there are alternate jurors for this situation in England.
If we are talking about a situation where a juror becomes aware of the potential conflict of interest/relationship at some point during the evidence, that's after they've taken the oath/affirmed and all the other people have been relieved and sent home. So there are only the 12 jurors left.
I'm not sure what happens if someone is sick or identifies a conflict and cannot stay, I guess the jury can continue with less jurors.
Comments on 2 issues raised above.
The jury I once served on was for a trial dealing with a theft from a large local employer, and we were asked if we had ever worked for them.
The prosectution admitted from the beginning that there was no evidence to link the defendant to the original theft, only to the related "handling" offence. Once the defendant heard the evidence that would be presented for that he changed his plea to guilty, and the prosecution dropped the theft charge. We only had to find him guilty on the latter charge, but one juror complained in the jury room that he had wanted to find him guilty of the theft as well.
Seems like @Telford believes that a Brummy (probably imaginary) judge could/should break the law to undermine jury trials. Because there was less crime in the old days.
I've read @Telford's posts and he didn't say that that should happen but observed that it had happened without giving his view on the matter.
I suspect that it's not very unusual when you select 15 people from a population of a million-ish that there might be prior relationship between one of those and one of the witnesses (who will also mostly be from that same population of a million-ish), and for that not to be known in advance. I'm sure that an honest juror would alert the courts of this should it occur. Quite possibly one of the contingencies in which an alternate juror could be called.
Again maybe this is a difference between E&W and Scotland, but I don't think there are alternate jurors for this situation in England.
If we are talking about a situation where a juror becomes aware of the potential conflict of interest/relationship at some point during the evidence, that's after they've taken the oath/affirmed and all the other people have been relieved and sent home. So there are only the 12 jurors left.
I'm not sure what happens if someone is sick or identifies a conflict and cannot stay, I guess the jury can continue with less jurors.
Not sure about the UK, but we can continue to run a trial with as few as 10 jurors in Canada. Go below 10 and you’ve got yourself a mistrial and you need to start over again. This is obviously a problem for long trials so there’s now a possibility of starting a trial with 14 jurors. If the number is still greater than 12 at the end of the evidence then 2 jurors are dismissed randomly (ie not necessarily ##13 and 14) before the jury deliberates.
Seems like @Telford believes that a Brummy (probably imaginary) judge could/should break the law to undermine jury trials. Because there was less crime in the old days.
I've read @Telford's posts and he didn't say that that should happen but observed that it had happened without giving his view on the matter.
Quite right. You have read my posts correctly.
You said it happened. I've asked for some sort of evidence, You have not responded, so I can only assume that there is no evidence.
We had twenty called for this trial - the first 15 were jurors, the other five reserves. We were read the list of names of those involved and, as Alan said, anyone who recognised one of the names had to inform the clerk of court. Those who did were replaced by a reserve juror. One reserve juror had to remain for the first couple of hours of the trial, in case any juror who hadn't recognised a name subsequently recognised a face.
Although I don't know anyone involved in the trial, it has turned out that I know the mother of one of my fellow jurors.
Knowing the place is irrelevant. I don't think it would be possible to exclude on that basis. If a pub brawl spilled out onto, say, Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, or the Cowgate, Edinburgh, or Union Street, Aberdeen and ended up as a murder, you would struggle to find a Scottish jury which didn't know those locations.
Interesting comments from those who have actually served on juries. The system may not be flawless (what system is?), but it seems to work, and great effort is made to make it as fair as possible.
I moaned and groaned when first called up, but enjoyed the experience. The case I was on lasted about three weeks IIRC.
I've only been called for jury duty once and that was at the time our son was sick and on treatment, I was able to be excused on that basis. My husband has been called a couple of times. Here there is a phone number to call to find out whether you are still expected to appear at the courthouse (I guess in case someone changes their plea and the case isn't going ahead, I forget now.)
My aged Dad was called in the last year of his life. I tried to have him removed from the roll, but all that could be done was to have him excused from that particular call, he would have needed new medical documentation, I've just typed but deleted how I felt about that.
My sister in law had a recent call and appeared to be available for two cases. I think the first case did not proceed to trial and the second case she had to disqualify herself as she was a former school principal who knew the whole family of the accused through her work. I wonder if this happens often for teachers in smaller towns/cities. I suspect she knew all the candidates for jury duty as well. I'm in Oz and wondered whether in other places you are expected to self-exclude too.
I suspect some people regret that Judge Jeffreys is no longer around. None of that PC woke impartiality nonsense with him!
He could be quite witty though: 'Jeffreys distinguished himself with black humour, for example noting that two brothers convicted of stealing lead from the roof of Stepney Church had "zeal for religion ... so great as to carry you to the top of the church", and noting that they had narrowly avoided committing a capital offence.' (Wiki)
I suspect that the jurors in that case might have been more influenced by some member of the Kray gang arranging for them to be knee-capped or worse. Or, by getting cornered by a member of the press (though, probably that would have put the journalist in contempt of court).
I suspect that the jurors in that case might have been more influenced by some member of the Kray gang arranging for them to be knee-capped or worse. Or, by getting cornered by a member of the press (though, probably that would have put the journalist in contempt of court).
I suspect that the jurors in that case might have been more influenced by some member of the Kray gang arranging for them to be knee-capped or worse. Or, by getting cornered by a member of the press (though, probably that would have put the journalist in contempt of court).
The jury could well consider that if they had to be protected, the men on trial were probably guilty. The Judge would no doubt have told them that they should not come to such a conclusion just because they had to have protection.
I suspect that the jurors in that case might have been more influenced by some member of the Kray gang arranging for them to be knee-capped or worse. Or, by getting cornered by a member of the press (though, probably that would have put the journalist in contempt of court).
The jury could well consider that if they had to be protected, the men on trial were probably guilty. The Judge would no doubt have told them that they should not come to such a conclusion just because they had to have protection.
Once again you seem to misunderstand the concept of a fair trial and exactly how juries are supposed to lawfully come to decisions.
I suspect that the jurors in that case might have been more influenced by some member of the Kray gang arranging for them to be knee-capped or worse. Or, by getting cornered by a member of the press (though, probably that would have put the journalist in contempt of court).
The jury could well consider that if they had to be protected, the men on trial were probably guilty. The Judge would no doubt have told them that they should not come to such a conclusion just because they had to have protection.
The jury may well have had such thoughts, understandable under the circumstances, but surely it would have been most improper of the judge to have mentioned it in court.
Actually, it probably would be something the judge is obliged to say. Something along the lines of "the accused have a reputation for being violent men and associating with violent men, and therefore the police have taken measures to ensure your safety. However, their reputation, and the reputation of associates, that has lead to these measures being taken are not relevant in your deliberations unless these are raised through witness statements during the trial."
Actually, it probably would be something the judge is obliged to say. Something along the lines of "the accused have a reputation for being violent men and associating with violent men, and therefore the police have taken measures to ensure your safety. However, their reputation, and the reputation of associates, that has lead to these measures being taken are not relevant in your deliberations unless these are raised through witness statements during the trial."
OK - I see what you mean, and I suppose that (under the circumstances of this particular case) such a careful approach would be appropriate.
Actually, it probably would be something the judge is obliged to say. Something along the lines of "the accused have a reputation for being violent men and associating with violent men, and therefore the police have taken measures to ensure your safety. However, their reputation, and the reputation of associates, that has lead to these measures being taken are not relevant in your deliberations unless these are raised through witness statements during the trial."
Similar to when they are told by the judge to ignore remarks that have been ruled to be inadmissable.
I guess most people would agree that there's no problem with a judge advising a jury on points of law etc.
Influencing the jury one way or the other, by nudge-nudge, wink-wink, or whatever, is quite another matter.
My Old Mum (obit 2004) was firmly of the opinion that anyone who appeared before a judge and jury was automatically guilty, as it was impossible for any mistake to have been made by the arresting and prosecuting authorities. A rather touchingly naive view, perhaps, but she was a product of the good old days.
Not long after I was raped I received a letter calling me for jury service. I wrote back saying that I didn't feel that I could give an impartial view if I was on the jury of a rape case and that I didn't think this would be fair to a defendant. I included a letter from my G.P confirming my statement and was excused.
Previously I had always seen it as a civic duty, but I though it more honest to decline.
Not long after I was raped I received a letter calling me for jury service. I wrote back saying that I didn't feel that I could give an impartial view if I was on the jury of a rape case and that I didn't think this would be fair to a defendant. I included a letter from my G.P confirming my statement and was excused.
Previously I had always seen it as a civic duty, but I though it more honest to decline.
Jury Duty has highlighted to me that I live in a bubble; or perhaps a series of bubbles. I am used to interacting with groups of people with whom I share a specific link - relatives / fellow employees /members of my church / people who live in my village / people with whom I share an academic interest, or a hobby.
On the jury the only link between the fifteen of us was the fact that we were on the jury. There were 8 women and 7 men, an equal spread of ages from 20s to late 60s, a spread between those living in poorer areas and those living in affluent areas, and a range of occupations. I could not imagine any circumstances, other than a jury, in which the 15 of us would find ourselves in the same room.
On the jury the only link between the fifteen of us was the fact that we were on the jury. There were 8 women and 7 men, an equal spread of ages from 20s to late 60s, a spread between those living in poorer areas and those living in affluent areas, and a range of occupations. I could not imagine any circumstances, other than a jury, in which the 15 of us would find ourselves in the same room.
Try the A&E. Difference would be that you wouldn't need to speak to any of them.
I was once excused jury service and they never asked me again.
On the jury the only link between the fifteen of us was the fact that we were on the jury. There were 8 women and 7 men, an equal spread of ages from 20s to late 60s, a spread between those living in poorer areas and those living in affluent areas, and a range of occupations. I could not imagine any circumstances, other than a jury, in which the 15 of us would find ourselves in the same room.
Try the A&E. Difference would be that you wouldn't need to speak to any of them.
Yes. Another place might be a church in a multi-ethnic urban area, which has a *gathered* as well as a local congregation...an Anglo-Catholic flagship church, maybe...
Comments
Can you provide any evidence for this, such as a newspaper report (or something similar) published at the time?
It's rather a serious accusation to make...
It's the first time I've ever been cited - for most of my adult life I was ineligible as my name was on the Roll of Solicitors for Scotland. I last practised as a solicitor in 1993, but I paid the annual sum to retain membership for a couple of decades after that. No one who is on the Roll, or who has been on the Roll within the last five years is eligible.
So apparently one can serve on a jury in England even if one is a practicing solicitor.
A long read but informative to the discussion, in my view.
AFZ
I am harking back to the days when people wanted to see criminals convicted. When far less crime was committed.
And a bit of influencing the jury to make sure the bloke you were sure did it got put away, if the normal rule of law wouldn't do the job, was therefore OK?
Tell me, if you commit a criminal act to "ensure" a "criminal" is convicted, shouldn't those who "want to see criminals convicted" also be coming after you?
For this reason if nothing else: jurors swear/affirm that they will make a decision based on the evidence. In front of the public and a court of law, with various penalties if they don't up to and including prison.
I don't see how one can honestly make that oath/affirmation whilst also believing that the jury can/should be influenced by the judge with regard to the efficacy of the presented evidence.
Far less crime, when was that then?
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/PRC, CSEW trends.jpg
(That chart only goes up to 2012 - the trend since then is that crime is back up to a similar level as the early 2000s ~ 6m recorded offenses).
Somebody I know got called for jury service in the spring of 2020 just as Covid was getting going. This was for service quite a long way from where they lived and in a place that was difficult for them to get to.
They were in their early to mid seventies and in the highest category of those required to shield. Initially a minor court official told them, hard luck, that was irrelevant. They kicked up a fuss and eventually they did manage to get deferred on those grounds. It was made clear to them that this was only temporary and they'd be expected to do their bit fairly soon. As far as I know, they've escaped so far, and I think they're now over the age limit and have escaped.
Also as far as I understand, the jurors in my trial would have had to discuss their knowledge directly with the judge. There were court ushers who kept things moving but I think it would have been a discussion with the judge with regard to exclusion.
Which in itself was a bit of a daft aspect of the trial. For one thing, I was reflecting afterwards, there's a high element of trust in getting jurors to own up to things. For another, the implication is that only direct personal relationships are relevant. Whereas it seems to me that a juror may well be influenced unduely by indirect relationships they were not aware of at the beginning of the trial.
For example a witness could be a neighbour of a family relative (and one might be worried about repercussions). Or a policeman introduced later in the trial might have interacted with a juror in a racist way in the past.
At the point when asked, the juror may honestly not be aware of these things, it is much more difficult to know whether to alert the judge/clerk/usher hours or days or weeks into the evidence.
And, of course, talking to the clerk might well have been a step towards talking to the Sheriff, I don't know as I didn't know anything about the town centre or the man arrested for walking around brandishing a machete so didn't need to talk to anyone. The response of the clerks could easily have been "we'll go have a chat with the Sheriff".
I suspect that it's not very unusual when you select 15 people from a population of a million-ish that there might be prior relationship between one of those and one of the witnesses (who will also mostly be from that same population of a million-ish), and for that not to be known in advance. I'm sure that an honest juror would alert the courts of this should it occur. Quite possibly one of the contingencies in which an alternate juror could be called.
I've read @Telford's posts and he didn't say that that should happen but observed that it had happened without giving his view on the matter.
Again maybe this is a difference between E&W and Scotland, but I don't think there are alternate jurors for this situation in England.
If we are talking about a situation where a juror becomes aware of the potential conflict of interest/relationship at some point during the evidence, that's after they've taken the oath/affirmed and all the other people have been relieved and sent home. So there are only the 12 jurors left.
I'm not sure what happens if someone is sick or identifies a conflict and cannot stay, I guess the jury can continue with less jurors.
The jury I once served on was for a trial dealing with a theft from a large local employer, and we were asked if we had ever worked for them.
The prosectution admitted from the beginning that there was no evidence to link the defendant to the original theft, only to the related "handling" offence. Once the defendant heard the evidence that would be presented for that he changed his plea to guilty, and the prosecution dropped the theft charge. We only had to find him guilty on the latter charge, but one juror complained in the jury room that he had wanted to find him guilty of the theft as well.
Quite right. You have read my posts correctly.
Not sure about the UK, but we can continue to run a trial with as few as 10 jurors in Canada. Go below 10 and you’ve got yourself a mistrial and you need to start over again. This is obviously a problem for long trials so there’s now a possibility of starting a trial with 14 jurors. If the number is still greater than 12 at the end of the evidence then 2 jurors are dismissed randomly (ie not necessarily ##13 and 14) before the jury deliberates.
You said it happened. I've asked for some sort of evidence, You have not responded, so I can only assume that there is no evidence.
Although I don't know anyone involved in the trial, it has turned out that I know the mother of one of my fellow jurors.
Knowing the place is irrelevant. I don't think it would be possible to exclude on that basis. If a pub brawl spilled out onto, say, Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, or the Cowgate, Edinburgh, or Union Street, Aberdeen and ended up as a murder, you would struggle to find a Scottish jury which didn't know those locations.
I moaned and groaned when first called up, but enjoyed the experience. The case I was on lasted about three weeks IIRC.
My aged Dad was called in the last year of his life. I tried to have him removed from the roll, but all that could be done was to have him excused from that particular call, he would have needed new medical documentation, I've just typed but deleted how I felt about that.
My sister in law had a recent call and appeared to be available for two cases. I think the first case did not proceed to trial and the second case she had to disqualify herself as she was a former school principal who knew the whole family of the accused through her work. I wonder if this happens often for teachers in smaller towns/cities. I suspect she knew all the candidates for jury duty as well. I'm in Oz and wondered whether in other places you are expected to self-exclude too.
The Jury Act here allows a trial to continue with as few as 10 jurors should it be necessary. No comment about any other jurisdiction.
He could be quite witty though: 'Jeffreys distinguished himself with black humour, for example noting that two brothers convicted of stealing lead from the roof of Stepney Church had "zeal for religion ... so great as to carry you to the top of the church", and noting that they had narrowly avoided committing a capital offence.' (Wiki)
Source.. The Guardian !!
Do you ?
This was probably one of the most difficult - and high-profile - cases of the 20thC.
Quite so. I wonder if that's what @Telford meant?
The jury could well consider that if they had to be protected, the men on trial were probably guilty. The Judge would no doubt have told them that they should not come to such a conclusion just because they had to have protection.
Once again you seem to misunderstand the concept of a fair trial and exactly how juries are supposed to lawfully come to decisions.
The jury may well have had such thoughts, understandable under the circumstances, but surely it would have been most improper of the judge to have mentioned it in court.
OK - I see what you mean, and I suppose that (under the circumstances of this particular case) such a careful approach would be appropriate.
Similar to when they are told by the judge to ignore remarks that have been ruled to be inadmissable.
Influencing the jury one way or the other, by nudge-nudge, wink-wink, or whatever, is quite another matter.
My Old Mum (obit 2004) was firmly of the opinion that anyone who appeared before a judge and jury was automatically guilty, as it was impossible for any mistake to have been made by the arresting and prosecuting authorities. A rather touchingly naive view, perhaps, but she was a product of the good old days.
It's hard to see how anyone completely impartial could be found - I suppose they'll have to do the best they can with whoever gets chosen.
Previously I had always seen it as a civic duty, but I though it more honest to decline.
Yes - honest and courageous.
On the jury the only link between the fifteen of us was the fact that we were on the jury. There were 8 women and 7 men, an equal spread of ages from 20s to late 60s, a spread between those living in poorer areas and those living in affluent areas, and a range of occupations. I could not imagine any circumstances, other than a jury, in which the 15 of us would find ourselves in the same room.
I was once excused jury service and they never asked me again.
Yes. Another place might be a church in a multi-ethnic urban area, which has a *gathered* as well as a local congregation...an Anglo-Catholic flagship church, maybe...