blonde poker forum

Vicky Pryce, ex Mrs Huhne is on trial

The jury are having a hell of a time deciding whether to convict

After a couple of days, they send a list of questions to the judge.

One reads

"Can you define what reasonable doubt is?"

The judge, in a heroic moment, spoke in court and replied

"A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have already given."


the 10 questions and answers are here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460


the judge in the Vicky Pryce case discharged the jurors, noting that they had displayed "absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding".

There is a re-trial on Monday


Doesn't give you great faith in the jury system, does it?

Likelihood (I hope) is one juror was too stupid to understand and wouldn't accept/couldn't understand what the others were telling him/her.

Although a minimum IQ requirement for all potential jurors wouldn't be a bad idea.

Come to think of it, a minimum IQ threshold to be allowed to vote would be pretty sound too.

Yes, it does sound like one or two jurors were being slightly obtuse and probably were a bit hard of understanding as well.

Crown and Defendant should wait until legal representation has been appointed and then flip for who gets who.

I think the jury's I.Q. is representative of the defendant. As I understand it,once the marriage was over she decided to grass him up thereby admitting perverting the course of justice.

Dangerous road. Sterilisation? Where do you draw the line when it comes to democratic right and further degrees of freedom.

Sigh at the court costs now. :/

and the defence was marital coercion

Obviously none of us has seen the full evidence, but some of the jury's questions are a cause for concern.

As someone once said, the problem with the jury system is that the decision is made by 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury service.

A lady I know that did Jury service, "I knew he was guilty as soon as he walked in"

True story.

I think I have written about on it here before....

I was on jury service, fraud case

Evidence lasted a week. Quite complicated

We walked into the jury room

One young lad started to read the Sun "He's guilty, lets get it over and done with, I can go home then"

One elderly bloke "I will never vote him guilty" and got his book out

the other 10 looked at each other.....


12 or so jury hours later we were directed to a majority by the judge and voted 11-1

I was the foreman that had to try and sort it


I am not sure any of the alternatives are any good, but the whole experience didn't particularly re-assure me that people have the capacity to take the evidence on board or in some cases the willingness to even consider it!

(The minimum IQ thing was a joke - Note to self, must remember to put a smiley after comments I don't mean to be taken seriously)

I did jury service, and it was a dull case that really could have been dealt with at a magistrate's court - but anyway, the way individuals within the jury can guide and influence others was interesting and concerning.

Not sure what a better solution would be though?

It was the Yorkshire Ripper though :)

Judges make the decision?

Hell no.

A 'professional' jury might work. Ie full timers.

I'd trust a judge over a jury to make the correct verdict more often than not.

I'm sure I've quoted before the case of a jury on a murder trial getting a Ouija Board out and convicting because the victim told them to.


I know someone who retired to deliberate on a case and was met with "It's obvious he did it. He's black. They're all at it."


Still the fairest system IMO.

     
Did The Old Bailey for a couple of weeks.

 Loved every minute!....however it did seem like :

In complex finance cases and such, jury members should be plucked from the profession.

:D

In those cases, there sometimes isn't a jury.

Ill get my coat. ;)

I definitely wouldn't.  They are there to ensure the jury is directed correctly, and that the defence and prosecution cases are heard correctly and fairly, and then they determine the sentence based on the jury's verdict.

But judges are no better placed to determine guilt or innocence than a lay-person, and sometimes are so out of touch with reality that they'd be dangerous as a judge & jury.

id take a jury over judge everyday!

Especially if the other side went to public school or had money

why are people so surprised and shocked that the general public are thick as multiple wide shits?

I did wonder.  I do try and not take the bait :(

You would hope judges knew what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant though.

Yes, and they should explain it so the jury understands it as well.

I don't know how much guidance they get, but asking for a definition of 'reasonable doubt' seems sensible to me. The judge's reply on this seemed totally unhelpful.

If I was standing trial for a crime I hadn't committed, I would rather trust one judge (three or five even better) than twelves joe schmo's that have been scooped off the street.

I might get 12 Woodseys for goodness sakes.

You'll be OK.  You're not from Krakow.

I would rather put my faith in judges than Joe public. Thankfully twice I've had cases thrown out before they even got chance to swear any Jury in :)

I have done jury service and found it very interesting, as has been said the judge is only really an overseer and someone to dish out the penalty if someone is found guilty.
Overall i think its best the way it is, jury deciding not judge,not open to corruption so easily for one reason.
Can see the arguement for not trusting the great british public tho, sometimes they can be testing.

Any one who thinks our justice system is even close to being good needs a reality check. so 12 random people are plucked off the street, most of whom will not have a clue about the law. Yes the judge will direct them but the law is so complex it is hard for joe public to understand.
I did Jury service when I was 21 and after our first break half the jury members said the man was guilty. It was a joke, when we was discussing the verdict you could tell half of them had not been listening to any of the evidence as they had already made there mind up. I was adamant the man was not guilty as I felt the prosecution did not offer me enough reason to believe he was guilty and, the judge accepted a 10-2 in the end and IMO someone got 11 years for something he did not do!
I personally feel the jurys should be legal experts but it will never happen as it would cost to much money.

Just be glad we don't live in a country where the prosecutor is on attempted murder charges. #oscarpistorious

In the early 80s I rfemember reading the results of an opinion poll.

Only 90 % of Britons had heard of Maggie Thatcher.

And 70% thought The Sun was a Labour supporting paper.

From that day on I have been wary of trusting the British public in any shape or form.

On the other side to that, remember when Paul Gascoigne was in court, and the Judge asked who 'Gazza' was, as he'd never heard of him.

How out of touch are judges??- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1432139/So-what-exactly-is-shizzle-my-nizzle.html

Also, remember Denning the judge who wouldn’t allow the appeal of the Birmingham Six because ‘If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury’…

and

he also said of the Birmingham Six, that if they been hanged we wouldn’t have had to put up with ‘all these campaigns to get them released’.

Camel - I think it's a dangerous road to go down allowing judges to decide guilt.  Effectively you are handing over jury rights to the State.  In my mind a random jury (even if their IQ isn't the best) is far less open to lobbying and politicial coercion.

I don't rate the general awareness of the public.  But I think they'll be honest.  I don't have the same hopes about the State, especially when you look at our current bunch of politicians.

98% of current cases are without a jury - decided by judge or magistrate.

Is that true?  For criminal trials?

I'm not really that fussed if the State decides if someone has committed a motoring offence, or decides on a divorce.

I did jury service a couple of years ago in a case about a young lad who killed his best friend in a dangerous driving incident. Everybody listened to the case intently and afterwards we discussed it in an intelligent fashion. Good points were proposed for both sides of the argument and we worked through them diligently before everybody agreed on a guilty verdict. I thought the system worked perfectly.

I don't see why the jury need to be legal experts. The reason there's a trial is because there's no conclusive legal proof and often it will be a case of do you believe the testimony of key witnesses or the accused. Let's say I was on the stand wrongly accused of murder, I would prefer 12 regular people to judge whether I am telling the truth rather than 1 judge assessing the cold legal technicalities of the case. Must say the judge himself was superb though.

From this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/21/juries-time-ducking-stool

Have to say the above puts into words what I think far better than I could have.

"Ninety-eight per cent of court cases are now tried by magistrates or judges on their own or with assessors"

Seems a pretty lazy statistic by the article giving no indiciation of what scope this covers .  What percentage of serious criminal offences have trial by jury?  I'm sure we don't need a jury when a serial re-offender pleads guilty to breaking and entering to fuel a drug habit.

But that is no argument in favour of scrapping juries in cases of murder, manslaughter or rape, and to lump minor offences in with them as justification is ludicrous?

The article reads to me like it has been written as a way of inciting people, rather than a genuine expression of views. You know, the sort of arsegravy you get from Littlejohn or Galloway.

Society has moved towards acting on the will of the people, rather than away from it. We now have interactive TV, every talent show is decided by public votes, we hold governments and those in power accountable by petition, press and pressure never more regularly seen.

Juries offer a way of common sense (a thing often said to be absent from the legal profession) being applied and, on the whole, it is generally accepted that juries come to a reasonable conclusion. That is all that is required. In practice, no one expects the right answer every time, but reasonable outcomes are essential to project the integrity of the legal process.

Peer review is a wonderful principle by which to judge our actions. That someone struggled with "reasonable doubt" is neither entirely surprising nor an indication that a process available for centuries is on the wain. People haven't suddenly become idiots.

All a jury must do is decide on the facts presented whether they are sure that person did that crime. If they aren't, the person walks. Society oughtn't punish unless it is confident of guilt. The jurors aren't held to account by their reasoning like judges are. They aren't concerned about their political image, their own aspirations, their previous decisions and so on. They are truly independent, with there being as many as 12 of them to dilute any impurities further.

The argument that the barristers not doing a good enough job is a reason to disband juries is bananas. We all get professionals in to do jobs for us. If they don't do the job well enough, we can hold them to account. There is also an appeals process if a mistake in law or fact arose.

Ms Pryce will likely face a re-trial, as the nature of the offence and the public interest will likely demand it.

The implication that justice can't have been done because the jury was not satisfied that Ms Pryce was guilty is a misunderstanding of the process, IMO.