MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473
The judge is pretty scathing in his comments on the jury. Would you have sat there for the last few weeks amidst all the media blitz and actually understood what was going on?
I did jury service in the mid 90's and IIRC there wasnt much info given about your responsibilities other than say guilty or not guilty based on what was presented to you in the court. Granted I would imagine not many people on the jury (if any in my case) had been in court before and could claim to understand everything especially when half the language used went over my head.
What can we expect from the public who dont understand what perjury is or what (perverting) the course of justice is. Its not like the world at large stops to explain these laws but simply assumes we all know, and like many a meeting at my work not many people will put there hand up and say 'i dont understand?' for fear of (wrongly) looking daft.
To my mind, there's more to some of these questions than initially meets the eye, particuarly Q5:
Q5. 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?
It sounds to me like an exasperated foreman/forewoman was having to deal with at least one juror who was either
a. Insistent on acquitting/convicting based on something they'd read in the paper/twitter/whatever, or
b. Trying to be Poirot and implying stuff from something they weren't supposed to.
I don't think the whole jury was being dumb. The questions suggest unmanageable elements within the group.
whether the defendant’s “religious conviction” to follow her wedding vows of obeying her then husband, Chris Huhne, would be reason enough to acquit her of committing a crime with him.
I want a religion that absolves me of any legal wrongdoing!
That, again, is the sign of someone absolutely idiotic on the jury who wouldn't be budged from a numptyous opinion.
but with permission to find 10/2 or 11/1 it suggests that there's at least 3 mentally challenged individuals on the Jury. Quite possible mind.
numptyous
WOTD
Numptyous. Brilliant.
I think there's a fair chance that given the options by the defence (as stated above) that a few on the jury would you use Kyles Defence (see $H-ITV weekday mornings) which states:
Why should I care
To my mind, there's more to some of these questions than initially meets the eye, particuarly Q5:Q5. 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?
In my experience the defence is very good at fielding questions that tug at the jury's ignorance. I was a juror where the defence simply had to draw attention to the fact that an interview had been written down in a a bobby's notebook, rather than taped like what you see in a TV Drama.
The problem is - the question is more memorable than the answer for many people, so non of the witnesses this question asked of confirmed this, everyone asked said that an interview would not commonly be taped in these circumstances and a written report of the interview was quite correct, and quite typical. In his summing up the judge told us there was sufficient evidence to convict.
For many jurors though - asking the question about the interview meant there must be a doubt about the interview or rather that interviews like this must be doubtful. Why else would the question be asked by a lawyer in a court, he surely knows what he's talking about and after all everything is on tape on TV. To them this meant there was 'reasonable doubt'.
We could have had a longer debate about it and maybe asked some questions of judge - but the jurors were so sick of being dicked about by the court all week they just wanted to have a show of hands and go home.
Whatever's happened, I reckon it's safe to say that these are the most expensive 3points in legal history! For everyone involved, including us! Farcical!
I do wonder about trial by jury, there are some right morons about and it's quite worrying to think that one day you may rely on one or more of them for your liberty....
Not that they'll take me alive!
The point where the judge had to explain "reasonable doubt" is funny too - sounds like he was seriously close to losing it with the jury.
Always comes back to rule #1 in life: people are idiots. Work from that and you'll never go wrong
Always comes back to rule #1 in life: people are idiots. Work from that and you'll never go wrong
+1
Hmm. Question 1:
1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand upon the definition, specifically [b]"was will overborne"[/b].
Judge: "The words are relatively straightforward English words which the law does not permit me to go beyond further than I have by way of clear illustration in these directions."
I'd want to see the full definition but that's not an easily followed expression, and it's not in general use. I think I know what it means, but then I have a strong grasp of english and a little legal education. Why is the definition phrased unclearly? Why can't he rephrase it into terminology that will be more universally understood?
Likewise "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable."- that's like forum arguing. I know linguistically what is meant by "reasonable doubt" but I don't know legally how far the definition of reasonable can be stretched. Some people hold opinions which I consider unreasonable, but they do not. Totally unhelpful answer to a reasonable question
"There's a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inferences."- but then, he doesn't actually say what it is. Again, I know the difference but it's perfectly reasonable that a juror might not, it doesn't make them stupid.
Obviously there could be selective quoting in the article, but he does seem to be an arrogant bell-end.
1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand upon the definition, specifically "was will overborne".Judge: "The words are relatively straightforward English words which the law does not permit me to go beyond further than I have by way of clear illustration in these directions."
That judge needs his balls kicking. Its a perfectly legitimate question asking for clarity and he answers by spending his handsomely recompensed time dicking about 12 people who've been compelled to give their time freely.
That was the answer to the question about reasonable doubt, not the question you've posted
The actual answer to q1 was:
Answer: “The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.”
Not according to the BBC. A similiar but slightly different answer was given to the reasonable doubt question.
"Mr Justice Sweeney said it did not require violence or physical threats and meant a woman was so affected by pressure from her husband that she was "impelled" to commit an offence and truly believed she had no real choice.
He added: "The words are relatively straightforward English words which the law does not permit me to go beyond further than I have by way of clear illustration in these directions.""
Full text:
IN THE SOUTHWARK CROWN COURTR
-v-
VASILIKI PRYCE
JURY QUESTIONS
Q1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion on page 5 of the jury bundle and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand on the definition, provide examples of what may fall within the defence, specifically 'will was overborne' and does the defence require violence or physical threat?
Answer: “The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.”
Q2. In the scenario that the defendant may be guilty but there may not be enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the notice of intent to prosecute to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be, not guilty or unable or not safe to bring a verdict?
Answer: “Turning to page three of my written directions, the direction is combining the burden and standard of proof with the need for a majority verdict. If, having carefully considered all of the evidence, at least 10 of you feel sure of the guilt of the defendant then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if after careful consideration at least 10 of you were feeling less than sure of guilt, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. And so it follows that if at least 10 of you are not sure, the appropriate verdict is one of not guilty.”
Q3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so can inferences/speculation be drawn on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so?
Answer: “The drawing of an inference is a permissible process. Speculation is not. In this case the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed, and where you are willing to draw inferences from that is entirely a matter for you.”
Q4. Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
Answer: “The prosecution must make you feel sure beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with, beyond the written directions [he had already given them]”.
Q5. 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?
Answer: “The answer to that question is a firm no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.”
Q6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn't bring witnesses from the time of the offence, such as the au pair or neighbours?
Answer: “You must not, as I have now emphasised many times, speculate on what witnesses who have not been called might have said or draw inferences from their absence. Her evidence is that no one else, other than Mr Huhne, was present when she signed the form.”
Q7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
Answer: “There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence and there is no burden on her to prove anything at all. The defendant does not have an obligation to present a defence, in this case the defendant has given evidence and it is for you to judge the evidence from her in the same way you would any other witness.”
Q8. Can we speculate about the events at the time Miss Pryce sent the form or what was in her mind when she sent the form?
Answer: “The answer to that is an equally firm no. The position in a criminal is that no one must speculate. There is a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inference, which is the drawing of common-sense conclusions from the facts of which you are also sure. Speculation is guesswork. That is not the same as inference at all.”
Q9. The jury is considering the facts provided but is continuing to ask the questions raised by the police. Given that the case has come to court without answers to these questions please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury should count on to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.
Answer: “You must decide the case on the evidence [put before the court]. It is for you to decide which you consider to be important, truthful and reliable then decide what common-sense conclusions you can safely draw. It is not for me to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important and which are not. That is a matter for you to decide.”
Q10. "Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?
Answer: “This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did. Answering this question will not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case. I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case.”
Mr Justice Sweeney went on: “I want to repeat the absolutely vital importance of your following my directions of law to the letter and the fact that it is an equally important part of each of your individual duties to ensure that all of you do follow my directions of law to the letter.
“Without doing so, you are simply not in a position to reach a true verdict according to the evidence one way or the other.
“It is essential that each of you ensure that my directions of law are faithfully applied by all of you. If, for whatever reason, any one or more of you feel you do not understand my directions, then it would be wholly wrong to reach a verdict one way or the other.
“Equally, the duty of all of you is to ensure that no one of your number does reach a conclusion one way or another unless they are confident they are able to understand and follow to the letter my directions. It does come in some cases that jurors are simply not able to agree in sufficient numbers on the verdict.
“If, after further consideration, you find yourselves in a position where you are simply not able to agree, then you must of course have the courage to say so. I hope all that is clear.”
I’ve given up trying to predict what way juries will go at trial. One thing they are not are homogenous entities that are consistent with one another. I’ve been witness to truly breath taking insouciance - members falling asleep, failing to grasp the rudimentaries of a case, playing detective themselves and (I impute from their questions) coming up with all manner of preposterous hypotheses.
Your average STW thread, (with all the varying views, opinions, wild assertions, biases, irrelevancies and disregard for the facts) can be like a deliberating jury in-action ... yeah, frightening isn’t it to think that some of us on here might one day be called upon to perform our civic duty!
For balance - I’ve know of many, very engaged, intelligent and interested juries that take their role seriously as well and some good points have been made on here. Jurors can find themselves in a confusing, adversarial arena with some towering ego's swaggering about, which they have to acclimatise to before then even begin to assimilate and interpret the information.
I think the jury should now go on trail, the idiots outed and shot.
The "reasonable doubt" response is the one that is always used in court now. There's just no way to explain or illusrate it further without bias.
surely to be "reasonable" is to be a conclusion that can be defended by reason?
Some hypocrisy in her desire to stitch him up, yet try to get off Scot-free of the exact same incident.
What a pair of little kids they have turned out to be. Caring Liberal Chris has turned out to be a self-serving slimeball and his Mrs just looks like a bitter old harridan who's only means of gratification is to squeal him up.
Politics at its best.
I'd have found her guilty. I'm not clever but completly understand the definition of coercion as explained in the above responses. Reasonable doubt isn't hard either. Some of those jury members should be hanging their heads in shame.
Having served on a Scottish jury (15 folk) I'd say its an eye opening experience...a vast range of intellects or ability to take it seriously. Most folk saw it as a jolly, even though it was a child abuse case. One guy who was happy to put himself up for jury spokesman (it ended up being me) wanted us all to come to a rushed guilty verdict as he fancied an afternoon in the bookies. I'd say 4 or 5 folk were diligent and interested enough to listen to all sides of the case and discuss rationally.
Today wasn't therefore a total surprise in a relatively lengthy case.
Firstly, Pryce has admitted doing something that was wrong, so why has this gone this far? Proceedings far outweigh the crime, surely this should have been dealt with by a magistrate.
Secondly, very poor reflection on the public ability to read/listen and level of understanding by the jury.
timber - she's been charged with Perversion of the course of Justice. It goes beyond a magistrate court. She admits the offence but is using one of only a few defences in law being marital coercion. The jury have to decide on the level of coercion, not the offence itself.
timber: Firstly, Pryce has admitted doing something that was wrong, so why has this gone this far? Proceedings far outweigh the crime, surely this should have been dealt with by a magistrate.
Perverting the course of justice is not a minor offence. It can ONLY be tried on indictment (i.e. in front of a jury). Even if the matter could have appeared at the magistrates court:
- they only have a maximum of 6 months sentencing power.
- they don't usually see cases lasting more than 2 days because of the difficulty getting the same bench (volunteers) on consecutive days. District Judges can sit in the Mags court for more complex cases, but have no greater power.
That's my experience - and it's more folk being weak-minded than stupid. A majority don't seem to want / care / be able to engage in the process. It's understandable to an extent, you're minding your own business and suddenly you're called upon to deliver judgement that could see someone imprisoned for a very long time (not in the Pryce case obv.) - a lot of people just mentally don't want to get involved with that.Having served on a Scottish jury (15 folk) I'd say its an eye opening experience...a vast range of intellects or ability to take it seriously. Most folk saw it as a jolly, even though it was a child abuse case. One guy who was happy to put himself up for jury spokesman (it ended up being me) wanted us all to come to a rushed guilty verdict as he fancied an afternoon in the bookies. I'd say 4 or 5 folk were diligent and interested enough to listen to all sides of the case and discuss rationally.
Today wasn't therefore a total surprise in a relatively lengthy case.
The Bastard Verdict in Scotland makes this a whole level worse, IM-limited-E. Total cop-out for the aforementioned wasters who can't take the jury duty seriously. I believe it's policy for the judges not to discuss this option in any depth in their summing up as it would just heap more confusion upon the beleaguered jurors.
but you have it easy you only need 8/15 to agree to get a verdict and have the "Not proven" verdict as a useful escape in this situation!fatmax - Having served on a Scottish jury (15 folk)
that's the bit that worries me most, about the jury system - although I can't find a significantly better solution. The alternative in Scotland is essentially one person making all the decisions which is not necessarily ideal either (although I suspect may actually be at least as dependable) - I don't know if anyone has ever conducted a survey to see if Sheriffs would have agreed with their Juries had the procedure been Summary business. That would be really interesting.I'd say 4 or 5 folk were diligent and interested enough to listen to all sides of the case and discuss rationally.
Actually I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often, especially when you need 10/12 to reach a conclusion.Today wasn't therefore a total surprise in a relatively lengthy case.
taxi25 - interesting that you feel you can make that decision without actually having sat through all the evidence (even if you've read every press report - you will have only a partial picture). Most of the case will have been incredibly boring* but might actually have built up a picture which was relevant, or established the credibility and reliability of witnesses which then weights the reliance you can place on their evidence.
* from a press perspective.
My aunt was on a jury a while back, horrible child abuse case. 3 of the jurors said, on day 1, basically "I don't care if he's guilty or not, someone's got to be punished for this terrible crime and he's the only person we can find guilty".
So that's encouraging. But I'm sure the OP will be pleased to know that they were all white and scottish.
surely to be "reasonable" is to be a conclusion that can be defended by reason?
Eh? Missing words there or something? I don't understand.
And is it actually true that lawyers use flowery complicated language in court that jurors don't understand because they're mugs? I've never been a juror and I've never sat in on a jury-tried criminal car, but if either side baffles the jury they risk not convincing the jury. There's no advantage in using unclear language - and jurors are mostly canny enough to spot bullshit.
I don't think the legal principles or the underlying facts in this case were very complicated even for lay people. Did she lie? Did she have no choice about lying?
I assume from reading those questions that a number of jurors were stupid and at least one was rather religious re mariage vows.
Question 5 defies beleief that someone would ask it. I assume it was to prove to a juror or jurors just how stupid they were being. I do hope so
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?
I mean reallty WTF 😯
As for reasonable doubt we all recognise it though we would all struggle to define it. I take it to mean you are not certain though there would still be a sliding scale there.
Question 5 defies beleief that someone would ask it. I assume it was to prove to a juror or jurors just how stupid they were being. I do hope so
It's the only plausible explanation I can see. Surely anybody who considered it reasonable to come to a conclusion based upon no facts or evidence wouldn't ask such a question. It must be somebody else making a point to them.
You do wonder just how much stupidity there is on juries that we don't get to hear about - though clearly this was a very unusual case with a subjective defence.
you have read threads on here that is your 12 peers 😯
I was assuming some of the people on here were only 12 😉
I reckon I'd want a jury of stw regulars. They're incredibly argumentative, have infinite time to debate minuscule points and all have a position on everything. If reasonable doubt wasn't created, you'd at least be sure of a mistrial for jury misconduct. 😉
The point where the judge had to explain "reasonable doubt" is funny too
Been there done that. Had a drugs trial where jury was directed that they could draw adverse inference from silence in interview. Jury came back after being dismissed to ask what reasonable doubt meant (the judge had even used the accepted common language "be sure") and whether they could convict on balance of probabilities, so there was no hope of them grasping more subtle concepts 🙄
Better to have questions than a miscarriage of justice, but I do wonder about trials for complex cases.
In some ways, getting rid of the jury and having decisions made by professional judges is quite appealing. However do we trust the "system" enough for that? More to the point, do all the current crop of professional judges actually have more sense than the average man in the street?
There was a chappie on R4 last night who'd done a lot of research into jury trials, and he reckoned that, in a survey of 1000's of cases, the judge and defence and prosecution barristers thought that the jury came to a reasonable decision, given the evidence presented, in 85% of cases.
In some ways, getting rid of the jury and having decisions made by professional judges is quite appealing.
To whom? And why?
To whom? And why?
Have you tried reading this thread and the article linked at the top?
At least with a judge you can be sure they understood their role. Its a strange one and 85% does not strike me as high given we are talking about banging folk upbut using judges means letting the "state" try you and decide. Neither is a perfect.system. Perhaps some professional jurors to help the great unwashed ??
but professional judges make mistakes too - otherwise we wouldn't need an appeal court. Judges misdirect juries, District Judges (if you like professional magistrates) make errors and magistrates, who whilst lay judges have undergone significant training can and do make mistakes whether acting alone or as a bench of three. I'm not suggesting they make errors regularly - but they do occasionally. By their nature professional judges are all legally qualified which inevitably makes them well paid, well educated, and intelligent. The way we select judges in the UK you would expect them to be amongst the best in their profession, successful, generally law abiding, etc. I'd hazard a guess that a disproportionate number went to private schools, and the "best" universities, and had parents who were in "professions". Add to that a gender imbalance, an inevitable age imbalance and probably an ethnic imbalance then you rely on a 'professional empathy' rather than the respesentative assessment that a jury of 'peers' might give.At least with a judge you can be sure they understood their role.
I'm not sure this is a better system. a 'two tier' jury would in many cases just mean you had a group of people who have greater influence than they should and 'ordinary' people would be subservient to their professional colleagues. I can also imagine a few 'trolls' who would be determined to show their professional colleagues they were wrong. HOWEVER I could imagine a possible role for a professional who has (probably) not sat in on the trial, to facilitate the decision making process rather than using a self appointed foreman, who would be able to keep discussion on track; point our inappropriate avenues; perhaps help jurors understand the judge's remarks; etc. And who could also alert the Judge to any jurors who are totally unwilling to follow the law.Neither is a perfect.system. Perhaps some professional jurors to help the great unwashed ??
The one advantage of a professional or lay judge making the decision is that if appealed they will have to justify and explain their logic. Unfortunately the secrecy of the jury room means that there is no transparency on this part of the process and I do wonder if this is a sensible way to get to a structured decision. It perhaps wouldn't hurt for juries to have to explain (to the judge, if not in public) the logic behind their decision.
Have you tried reading this thread and the article linked at the top?
Yes, none of it made me think that rolling back jury trials further was desirable.
The vast majority of trials don't involve juries anyway. Juries aren't asked to solve questions of law, they're asked to make decisions about facts and credibility. Judges aren't any better placed to make decisions on those issues than people without legal training are.
I know quite a few judges and much prefer the idea of twelve members of the public deciding on the simple questions asked of a jury . Those questions normally boil down to variations on , can you be sure what happened ? who do you believe ? and given fact x what do you think was going through the defendant's mind ? Questions most accurately answered by a group consensus rather than an individal.
The Pryce jury were very very special . We should not alter a valuable and effective system that is a fundamental part of our society because of one freak example.
but professional judges make mistakes too
What you mean people are not infallible 😯
Should we let everyone off till we are
My point is they would never ask question 5
Tes its not perfect and I don tthink i would actually support this as an idea but I would prefer ot to the shower who served on that jury [ it would only have been a small number on that jury]
a 'two tier' jury
I did not sugeest that and thought it was clear I meant to help and assist the jury and grass on morons and the who cares lets find them guilty i want to go home. Perhaps if jurors wer eheld to account for their decisions they would take it more seriously?
There may indeed be no better alternative to juries but perhaps some tweeking would help?
Questions most accurately answered by a group consensus rather than an individal.
Hence a panel of 3 magistrates, a panel of 3 appeal court judges (who do actually make decisions about facts and credibility).
I'm not suggesting I think they should get rid of juries, but it's clear there is a lot wrong with the current system.
Well, you could argue that in this case, the system worked
you need ten people to agree - if there is any more than two dissenting views on the jury, then there is no verdict, and another jury gets to decide. Is a pretty good safety factor, which means that even if you had nine idiots on the jury that didn't understand, then there's no miscarriage of justice.
(Z11 new login, long story)
Hence a panel of 3 magistrates, a panel of 3 appeal court judges (who do actually make decisions about facts and credibility).I'm not suggesting I think they should get rid of juries, but it's clear there is a lot wrong with the current system.
I've had more strange decisions from Mags (usually bail apps - we always appealed and never lost one appeal)than from juries.
Well, you could argue that in this case, the system worked
Interesting argument. Unless you define having to do it all again because of stupidity as the system working.
It worked in the sense that stupidity led to no decision rather than the wrong decision.
We must say no misscarriage of justice has happened becasue as yet no justice has been dished out.
Its hard to defend some of those questions tbh and even harder to argue the systme worked this time - the checks and balance may have worked [ bit the point is to reach a verdit and they failed]. I suppose it stopped idiots affecting it but its not hard to find 3 idiots from 12 folk [ not on here anyway 😉 ]
Hence a...panel of 3 appeal court judges (who do actually make decisions about facts and credibility).
Surely questions of fact and witness credibility are a matter for the court of first instance rather than a court of appeal?
Question 5 was clearly written by someone who KNEW the answer and was making a point.My point is they would never ask question 5
Actually I found it encouraging that one or more people where prepared to ask the questions, and thus make the Judge aware of the issue.its not perfect and I don tthink i would actually support this as an idea but I would prefer ot to the shower who served on that jury [ it would only have been a small number on that jury]
no I'm afraid 'professional jurors to help the great unwashed' left an impression of professionals being paid to do the same / similar role. I'm not sure how you would hold jurors to account especially without simply encouraging people to sit quietly and say nothing.JY - I did not sugeest that and thought it was clear I meant to help and assist the jury and grass on morons and the who cares lets find them guilty i want to go home. Perhaps if jurors wer eheld to account for their decisions they would take it more seriously?
unless of course the Pryce jury were unusual because the problem came to light and in other jury rooms similar issues never reach the judge?The Pryce jury were very very special . We should not alter a valuable and effective system that is a fundamental part of our society because of one freak example.
Hence a panel of 3 magistrates, a panel of 3 appeal court judges.
But District Judges sit alone, Sheriffs sit alone in Scotland (or Summary Cases). Justices of the Peace sit alone in some jurisdictions in Scotland, and Magistrates can sit alone in England (but not for trials).
it is of course possible that the second jury will also be unable to reach a majority verdict, or will reach a not guilty verdict in which case you might question the whole process...Interesting argument. Unless you define having to do it all again because of stupidity as the system working.
Having had a think about it, actually the bigger problem of the jury system relates more to the sort of cases we often discuss on here - where several members of the jury are themselves criminals, but just haven't been caught yet. Then again, seeing how judges don't apply the sentencing guidelines properly in such cases when the jury does manage to give a guilty verdict, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in them doing any better if also left to determine guilt.
Question 5 was clearly written by someone who KNEW the answer and was making a point.
Its the only thing that makes any sense but it is indicative that at least one jury member thought they could base the decision on something not presented as evidence [ as indeed was question 10] that had no factual basis. Not only this but they would not listen to the other jurors - tbh that poerson or persons should not be allowed to judge as the process is beyond them. No way would a judge do this and if a jury did this the professional could offer guidance.
The problem with having professionals is that many jurors would just follow what they say, so you'd be giving them a great deal of influence: this was part of the old tradition (now abolished?) that lawyers shouldn't be chosen as jurors. Moreover, it would be influence without oversight: there's (practically) no scrutiny of what happens in a jury room. How would you identify when a professional juror/adviser was giving incorrect or biased advice? If a judge does it, it happens in the presence of both sides' lawyers so the safety valve is that either can object and if necessary appeal.
Jury dynamics can be complicated. I don't know whether its been mentioned yet but sometimes juries will not convict because, although they accept that more likely than not there's been a breach of the law, they nonetheless side with the defendant in the circumstances. So yes, he or she maybe technically guilty, but such is their sympathy they will acquit (and they will look to any reason to do so). It's what I term 'the law of the jungle' - which probably only makes sense to me!
Just what I was referring to in my post a few above yours, deluded.
True, deluded (!), and anecdotally I've been told by an extremely experienced criminal trial lawyer that he thinks women on juries are particularly unlikely to find a defendant guilty of adult sexual assault charges because they want to distance themselves from identifying with the victim/complainant.
but it can go the other way too, where juries are inclined to convict a defendant because they're a wrong 'un or otherwise unsympathetic people (people previously convicted of sex offences for example), even when the evidence for that particular charge is a bit ropey.
The right of a jury to acquit a defendant without explanation is an important check on prosecutors, too. If juries consistently refuse to convict persons accused of particular crimes, then that suggests the law doesn't enjoy popular legitimacy.
True, deluded (!), and anecdotally I've been told by an extremely experienced criminal trial lawyer that he thinks women on juries are particularly unlikely to find a defendant guilty of adult sexual assault charges because they want to distance themselves from identifying with the victim/complainant.
Sounds like a good one to mail into CIF at the Guardian for a bit of national broadsheet trolling.
[img] 
[/img]
I can't say I'm surprised. I found it difficult to believe that the former chief economist to Williams & Glyn's Bank, KPMG, the DTI, and former Head of the Government Economic Service, a woman at the very top of her profession and commanding a salary quite possibly larger than her husband's, was some sort of weak and timid shrinking violet who was bullied by her husband into taking speeding points against her will.
[i]I found it difficult to believe that the former chief economist to Williams & Glyn's Bank, KPMG, the DTI, and former Head of the Government Economic Service, a woman at the very top of her profession and commanding a salary quite possibly larger than her husband's, was some sort of weak and timid shrinking violet who was bullied by her husband[/i]
Then you don't know much about how domestic violence works, really, do you?
Have a look at @fleetstreetfox on twitter for the last half hour for a far better explanation than I can give.
Well that all went well.....
Then you don't know much about how domestic violence works, really, do you?
+1. It's a great shame for genuine victims that Pryce relied on this defence.
Have a look at @fleetstreetfox on twitter for the last half hour for a far better explanation than I can give.
I was relying more on the jury's verdict, was that wrong then ? Should someone tell the judge ?
I'm with ernie on this - that pretty much sums up how I've thought about this all along.
www - where are you getting the idea DV was involved when that's not something she's ever alleged?
Have a look at @fleetstreetfox on twitter for the last half hour
I took your advice, and all I found was some <got to be careful what words I use here so as not to be accused of misogyny> angry complaining about the words used to describe Ms Pryce. What is it I'm missing, as I'm really not sure I want to wade through all her soapbox outpourings to find the relevant bit?
Was she really alleging violence in the relationship? I must have missed the reporting of that bit.
She won't seriously get a custodial will she? I guess the marital coercion charade may have angered the judge. Hope someone is looking after her, she must be in pieces.
Why shouldn't she get a custodial? AFAICS she has now been found guilty of the same crime as Mr Huhne, and I don't see anybody suggesting he shouldn't get one. Arguably she should receive a longer sentence than him, as she didn't plead guilty.
Apparently she might get the longer sentence, presumably based on claim of innocence.
I think the general area of taking the michael out of the legal system is not goign to be well received if you get nicked. Its seen as very serious indeed, and people who should know better (which both of these are), will get royally stiffed by the beak, and quite rightly so IMHO
Custodial sentences for both of them I hope.
They were actually stupid as the odious Hamiltons just claimed they couldn't remember who was driving.
My non-legal take on it would be Huhne's position was totally indefensible as he tired to brass-neck deny his way out of it and then folded at the last possible second.
Whereas Pryce was in receipt of some appalling legal advice to roll out a martial coercion defense, but basically I could believe she was pressured into doing it.
I appreciate that she has backed herself into a corner, though, so the judge can't just deliver a gut-feeling, go-easy, sentencing on the back of it. He has to be seen to take action.
All over a measly 3 points!
aracer - I was responding to Ernies point about this 'long list of accomplishments' woman who would, therefore, be incapable of being bullied by her husband.
Bullying of a spouse is domestic violence, hence my use fo the term.
Clearly the jury have decided that any coercion involved was insufficient to pass a test in law.
It doesn't mean that no woman (or man) with 'long list of accomplishments' is psychologically incapable of being bullied or the subject of actual violence by their partner in a relationship which seemed to be the point being made.