Jury Service

[SIRandyraven]

Check out some of the questions they asked.
Should people need to sit a basic IQ and English test prior to being selected for Jury service ?

What a huge waste of tax payers money this has been so far.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473

[hc4361]

It wasn't even a particularly difficult case to comprehend - unlike the Guinness trial which went on for months and was very technical.

[aelmpvw]

surely anyone not wanting to serve on a jury would fail the test deliberately?

[Graham-W]

It would have to be very basic. You are supposed to be judged by your peers which means your equals. The reports on some of the trials I've seen show most people to be more intelligent than the defendant.

[SIRandyraven]

On of my in laws was called up and sat about for two weeks.
He was never selected because he was in the police.
I always thought police were exempt from jury service ...but alas no

[SIRandyraven]

A growing number of people in England and eligible to be selected for Jury service , don't even speak or understand English.
How would they cope with the language used in court ?

[SIRandyraven]

I'm sure I heard one of questions or comments was ...
When she took her wedding vows
"Honour and obey"....
and thus she had no choice , but to do as he told her ...and thus commit fraud over the speeding points

[ChillDoubt]

The lack of a verdict aside, for someone who claimed to have been brow-beaten by her ex(Huhne) into taking the points she certainly appeared feisty enough and able to stand her ground if those telephone conversation tapes are anything to go by!

[vulcan42]

Once saw a film called "Twelve angry men", hope its sequel isn't "Twelve not quite sure what's going on ".

[Canary42]

It's all very well for the judge to criticise the jury for not understanding their role - but it IS the judge's responsibility to ensure they do before he sends them out to consider their verdict - so it is he who is at fault, not them. This is just another attempt by the Establishment to move away from jury trials.

[FredPuli43]

What more could the judge have done, Canary? He even had the essential directions printed for the jury to take into the jury room.

[Buenchico]

At least the jurors seemed to be trying to do their job properly, even if they did struggle to understand exactly what was required of them.

I've met a great many people (who've served on juries) who seem to think that it's their job to determine whether or not the defendant has committed the crime which he/she is accused of. That is not, and never has been, the role of jurors; it is their job solely to determine whether the prosecution has actually proved that the defendant is guilty.

[Buenchico]

I should have added that, in most cases, jurors who ask a lot of questions are probably far more likely to be taking the job seriously than those who just 'go with the flow' (and, quite likely, rely on little more than 'gut instinct', rather than questioning the evidence before them).

[FredPuli43]

Chris, you jurist you ! What is wrong with a juror saying that his task was to find whether the accused did the crime or did not do the crime? A juror who thinks or says that is not denying the standard or burden of proof; he is simply giving the common sense of the situation. He will have been directed on burden and standard. The verdict of "Not guilty" is literally that; it is not a verdict of "Not proven"; and upon receiving it , the judge might even say the hackneyed "You leave the court without a stain on your character". In theory, in English law, the accused might be sued and found, by a single judge without a jury, to have committed tort, meaning, in effect, the crime, on the balance of probabilities, but that is not how the layman thinks (and why should he ?)

Juries who ask questions usually do so to be reminded of evidence. Sometimes the question is puzzling to those outside the jury room ("How old was the horse?" in a rape trial, is a famous one, asked too late). When they do ask for further directions on law, that is usually asking to be reminded of a direction in detail on one narrow aspect. A common impression is that questions are asked for the benefit of one juror, or very few, not yet agreeing with the rest; it's surprising how quickly they come back with a verdict when the answer is given. But the absence of questions is not indicative of lack of independent thought; it could be said that the jury that asks them is not wholly comprised of people who could remember evidence or the judge's directions. This jury's questions might suggest that one of them had so utterly annoyed the foreman by demonstrating total lack of understanding that the foreman asked the questions of the judge to shut that member up.

And the horse? The victim had allegedly been dragged of her horse and raped. The jury wanted to know the age of the horse. If it was old, it would stand still regardless of the events. If young, it would have bolted, unless there was no rape at all to disturb it or the intercourse was quietly consensual !

[FredPuli43]

The Daily Mail tells us : that only two of the jury were white and the remainder "appeared to be of Afro-Caribbean origin"; at least twice, the court rose 30 minutes early because a juror had "a religious obligation to keep";"despite their visibly different backgrounds" " none of them appeared to have difficulty with the English language when reading the oath"; many were dressed casually and none of the men wore a shirt and tie. The paper explains that jury service letters are written in eight languages and that not understanding written English is no bar.

What can the Daily Mail mean ? What was the purpose of all that? Are they suggesting an explanation for the stupidity of the questions, although their own piece provides no evidence (unless e.g. being black and not wearing a tie is meant to be)?.