I was recently lent the DVD set, ‘The Jury’ (Series 2) by a visitor from England. For those who have not seen it, it tells the story from the point of view of various jury members who have been summoned to a case involving the retrial of a man convicted of murder, but whose conviction was overturned on appeal. At the same time that the trial is taking place, a bill is being discussed in Parliament that proposes the ending of trial by jury. It was an enjoyable drama with some interesting characters, plots and sub-plots.
Today I read this article, which tells of a woman juror who has been found guilty of contempt of court for carrying out research into the background of the accused in a criminal trial in which she was serving. It bears strong similarities to the fictitious case mentioned above.
At the end of the TV drama we are told that the bill to throw out the jury system is rejected. We are supposed to believe, presumably, that the result returned by the jury in this particular case together with the process and arguments that lead to the verdict, clearly demonstrate that the current jury system works and should be maintained. Personally, I felt it did no such thing and in fact showed the jury system to be very flawed. Reading today’s article, I am even more convinced that trial by jury has outlived its usefulness.
It is quite clear, that unless juries are sequestered from the outset, there is every possibility that they will hear evidence relating to the case that is not presented in court and which they are supposed to ignore, but may on occasion find very hard to do. While in court all jurors will here all the same evidence, though there is no guarantee they will all understand it, but outside of the court they will read and hear different evidence, both in the media and at the dinner table; evidence that they may not share in the jury room. That information will be processed and will serve to form the unique opinion of the juror.
The actual requirements to be a jury member in the UK are listed here. To my mind they are pretty vague:
A jury panel is summoned from eligible persons who are:
- Registered electors aged 18 to 70 (Including the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries);
- Resident in the UK for at least 5 years since age 13;
- Not mentally disordered; and
- Not disqualified for whatever reason.
The drama did not make it clear to what extent the courts endeavour to establish whether or not those conditions are met. For example, one juror used a false identity based on similar photos on their passports. Another character in the drama had been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. There was a refugee from Sudan, who as it turned out spoke English well, but it was not otherwise clear what level of fluency in English is required and whether any verification tests are performed. But consider deafness or various learning disabilities or any other reason that might render an individual ill- suited to judge a suspect’s guilt or innocence. In the actual case above, the juror said her command of English was not great.
The character of the individual juror must surely be considered? A staunch conservative is likely to have very different views to those of a die-hard liberal. A religious fundamentalist might disagree on principle with an atheist. The drama had a one juror who had developed a crush on the suspect, while another skin-head type individual was convinced of the suspect’s guilt from the word go.
Despite telling jurors they may not research the case on the internet, or presumably anywhere else, to what extent do the courts prevent this from happening? I suggest that they make no effort whatsoever and rely on the feedback of other jurors or incidental observers.
Then there is the fact that as sincere as the members of a jury might be, more than likely they do not possess the qualifications to determine the level of significance to give to a particular piece of evidence. Given the low levels of literacy in the UK, how many people understand what is meant, for example, by circumstantial evidence, or hearsay. When a judge tells a jury to dismiss something they have been told, to what extent do they actually dismiss it? One can be pretty sure that most jurors do not necessarily understand the underhand tricks used by the prosecution and defence barristers to make their respective cases.
I believe that a panel, of professional jurists, 3 say, whose characters have been vetted, who have a knowledge of the law and who are mature, educated, intelligent and trustworthy, would make for a far fairer and safer trial than one that relies on a bunch of untrustworthy, unreliable amateurs.
I read once that if you are guilty of a crime, you are better off being tried by jury. But if you are innocent, you should seek to have your verdict determined by a judge.
Boadicea's Chariot 
I have stated my case in the past and I know Boadicea for one disagrees with me, but I would be interested to hear the opinions of others, especially JM and any other lawyers out there.
Interesting, Sipu.
I haven’t seen the series but I have served on a jury in the UK. Firstly, the whole process is based on a decision based on your “peers”, a very established right in England.
Juries are generally regarded as a necessary evil by the legal profession, and I understand why.
But, I still support the principle. Juries are directed, and indeed are not present when points of law are argued. This is not their purpose. They are asked to come to a verdict on the evidence presented, given that the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is true that in some civil cases the complexities are such that any jury cannot be expected to understand, the system in the case of criminal cases is still valid, in my opinion.
Sure, the selection of a jury is entirely random, and I understand your point regarding bias by feedback by press and the internet, this may be a reason why I so dislike trial by media. Maybe, sadly, it is possible that trial by jury does not work, for this reason.
Oops, please excuse typos: I’m in a rush!
Sorry, having just read your comment, I’m not a lawyer, Sipu, but I was a juror.
I’m not a lawyer either nor have I served so I’m well placed to pass an opinion! I would worry about a single judge deciding my fate. I know from books and the telly that judges are as biddable as individual jurors and I’d bet against a majority of the panel being bought.
However (cough) no jury in the 21st century can be unaware of the background to cases. A hundred years ago they could.
Ara, thank you. You have served on a jury so at least have experience, which I have not. However, the idea that prisoners are judged by their peers, is, I think, somewhat tenuous. Who are my peers, or yours, or the postman, or anybody else’s? They are not the same. That does not mean to say that I believe some people are necessarily superior or inferior, to others, though that may be the case, (he said provocatively), but affluent Henley is not the same as effluent Tower Hamlets. I believe the purpose and indeed the merit of a jury is, or rather was, that your own community decided whether you were guilty or not. Is your behaviour acceptable to them. I submit crime and its significance are relative to the community in which it is committed and, by whom it is committed. Well, that at least that is how it used to be. Now, though, we are far more interconnected, mobile and informed. Crime is more absolute but one’s peers are not. I do not want to be judged by a Somali refugee or a by an active member of the Labour Party or other such lunatic organisation. They are not my peers. A professional jurist is much more likely and able to judge the evidence and decide accordingly.
Janus, thank you. I agree that it may harder to bribe a jury than an individual, but, a) 99 cases out of a hundred, the suspect would not be in any position to attempt to bribe anybody, nor would it be worth his while. Most cases are fairly mundane and the criminals are not high profile wealthy gangsters. Secondly it would be much easier to monitor the integrity of a finite number of professional jurors than it would an vast number of largely anonymous members of the public.
Sipu, surely one’s peers are that great mass of citizens unconnected with the judiciary or the law enforcement authorities. When you commit your crime you might well wish to specify their origins but that’s the point , isn’t it?
I have performed jury service – someone may possibly remember my post on the subject. Certainly here, the defence can – and does – decline to accept individuals when a jury is being empanelled.
I may have been lucky, but I found my fellow jurors – some old, some young, some rich, some poor, some male, some female – all positively motivated to perform the task as honestly and competently as they could. Were I in the dock on some trumped-up charge, I could wish for no better jury than my eleven companions.
I join Araminta in supporting the principle of the current system.
I would suggest that the choice of jury or judge should lie with the accused, if the accused feels a trial by jury will be fairer then it is their choice. The if
dea of a sort of Judge Judy for minor cases is really good as it cuts costs all round and gets rid of expensive crooked lawyers.
But all jurors must seak English, the woman in this case is claiming her English is not that good, then she should not have been accepted as a juror in the first place
Morning Sipu.
Regarding “peers”, I take your point, but the selection of jurors is completely random, and the geographical areas are quite wide. I was originally supposed to report to Oxford Crown court because I live in Oxfordshire. I ask to be transferred to Reading which is much nearer. I served on two juries and I was the only one who lived in the Henley area. Reading, take it from me, is not what I would describe as “affluent”. We were a very mixed bunch.
My experience was just as Bearsy described, we all took it very seriously and were determined to be as impartial as possible. It was not an easy thing to do, and it is quite a heavy responsibility. In both cases, a guilty verdict meant that the accused would end up in prison for a number of years.
Arrers, my Dad served too and told me much the same thing. Beware the media spin – again.
Thanks, Janus.
Yes, I must admit I was relieved not to have picked for a murder trial going on at the same time!
Sipu i am not a lawyer but have worked in law for 25 years, the first ten years of which was in admin at the Old Bailey. Saying that, I believe I actually think like a lawyer – I can argue (and listen) both sides of the fence. I think I agree with most of everything you have said. It is an excellent post, and you make your points very well..
Frankly I was aghast at the Prison sentence imposed on this particular juror and my first thoughts were “what on earth have the defence team done here?” for I believe they have failed miserably in representing her best interests. It surely is common place now for anyone on a jury to see TV news and read media articles of cases on which they might sit; surely too, where one wants to make an honest decision as to one’s guilt or otherwise, to go on the internet for any background or other information relating to the case or to the accused. As you say, the Court will have no way of knowing whether a juror will take this route. Consequently this internet activity cannot of itself be a crime, not in law anyway.
There must be hundreds if not thousands of trials where the jury are “influenced” by the views/bullishness/prejudices of other jurors. I have know women come back from the ordeal of jury-room banter, distraught and in tears.I have known of stories where jurors have tried to ‘expedite’ decisions where someone has a need to be home by a certain time. (I remember a court being re-convened only for the Judge to open an envelope to read a note from a juror “Please make sure you phone my husband to take the dinner out of the oven.”
In my view, many defendants would find themselves convicted if evidence of a defendants pattern of behaviours were in court prior to deliberating on verdicts. And this is I think what the woman in question in is being punished for. In attempting to enlighten the jury as to the defendants character, or past, she became actively influential in changing opinion in the jury room, and this with evidence that was not allowed in the courtroom.
I believe she undermines her defence by an admission that her English is not great. That to me is a red herring .And I blame her defence team on that .You make a good point when you question any juror’s abiltiy to discard evidence where the Judge has so directed. In truth you cannot discard information. You can put in another pile, you can save it to a data-bank, but you cannot ‘delete’ it. So who knows, on deliberation of any verdict, how much emphasis any one juror places on “discarded” evidence. Jurors prejudiced by someone’s looks, by colour or clothing, by political views, by disenchantment with police or government will only to readily seize any shard of evidence of indeed peripheral gossip to ram home their unique and biased views.
I am tempted to tell you the story of a deaf friend of mine who actually wanted to serve on a jury but was refused on account that an interpreter would have been necessary to be with them all in the jury room! This was refused by the Judge . (Maybe later in this thread!)
Finally I now agree with your concluding sentence, though 40 years ago I may have disagreed.
PS I’m waiting now to hear the views of JM.
Thank you PG, that was very enlightening. You have the experience that I lack. You seem to confirm that which common sense leads me to believe. i.e the jury system is flawed. But, perhaps, there is no better system. I am not convinced. I wonder what Sheona thinks of French justice. Here in SA we so not have a jury. But I am not sure that anybody on the Chariot, apart from Soutie and me, would attach any great significance to that!
Thank you too Bearsy. You speak from experience, so I must take what you say on board, though I remain unconvinced.
Janus, you speak of a person who has committed a crime. I am thinking of a person who is innocent. I am not a criminal nor do I envisage becoming one. So were I to be accused of a crime, I would hope for a jury of like minded people, not one comprising those of a criminal bent, or those who have a vastly different perspective on life. However, I like to believe that were I to commit a crime, it would be a moral decision that lead me to do so, in which case I hope that I would accept my fate.
People sometimes ask me what I would most like to be remembered for. I reply, ‘killing Robert Mugabe’. That would be a crime and I recognise that I would have to face the law, provided I was caught, even though, to my mind it would be a morally justified action. Which is probably why millions like me have not already attempted to do it.
Rick, as for the individual not speaking English properly, of course she should have asked to be relieved, but she did not. The onus should not be on her to determine her competency, but on the law, who must decide whether she is capable of performing her role objectively and competently.
In the US, in some, if not all states, both prosecution and defence have the opportunity to accept or veto a certain number of jury members based on all sorts of criteria, including ethnicity, demographic, etc etc. I do not believe that this happens in the UK. Either the US system is flawed, or the UK system is flawed.
Sipu – you raise an interesting debate and I am slightly fence sitting by saying that I have worked in the criminal justice system for 18 years and have a deep cynicism for it coupled with a strong frustration with its many shortcomings. I have been a victim of its stupidity and I struggle to trust it.
There are a few exceptions nowadays for specialist type cases at Crown Court, mainly those complicated matters around fraud and corporate crime where special courts sit without jurys and overseen by a specially trained judge. This also occurs with some terrorist cases and most controversially, in cases where the jury has been nobbled in previous mis-trials or when strong evidence suggests nobbling will occur. (I believe to date since the legislation changed a few years ago, only one case like this has been conducted)
Either way, you make fair points about jury’s language and intellect, but overall, they are well instructed by the court and judge. I bow down to those who have served on one, including my wife. Her experience was interesting, and although they passed a guilty verdict, she felt the law was wrong!
The real problem in the CJ system are the magistrates – 3 old gits with no legal training and no concept of what real life is like fir the common man nor what punishments are appropriate. Fortunately they can only judge minor stuff, but this is the part that needs serious reform here in the UK, before any Crown Court problems which are overall, pretty much evenly weighted.
Sipu, good evening.
As ever, we do things differently in Jockland. A long time since I was involved in Court law. I may get some of this a wee bit wrong and it is very broad brush.
Very few juries in civil cases but there are 12 jurors for such cases.
Criminal juries are more common. In Sheriff Courts, they are used in more serious cases since the Sheriff has greater powers of sentencing when sitting with a jury.It is up to the prosecution to decide whether to have solemn (with jury) or summary (sheriff alone) jurisdiction in any particular case.
In the High Court where the really serious crimes such as murder and rape are tried, then there must be a jury. We have 15 jurors with a simple majority of 8 being sufficient for conviction or acquittal.
Jurors can be aged from 18 upwards but you can seek an exemption if you are over 71. As a general statement, anybody involved with administration of the law is inelegible to serve. Certain professions such as doctors, dentists, midwives, nurses, vets, pharmacists, clergy and members of the Armed Forces can serve but have the right to claim exemption. Pollies can also claim exemption. The usual disqualifications for criminal records etc, apply.
About 60 or more potential jurors are invited to attend. On their arrival, the Clerk to the Court tells them the name of the accused and the names of anybody who is prominently involved in the case. It is then open for people to apply to be excused for various reasons. After that process, the remaining pool of jurors is balloted. Jurors can be challenged for cause shown – we used to have peremptory challenges where no reason needed to be given but that right has been abolished.
We have 3 verdicts as well, of course. Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven (what Sir Walter Scott called the ‘bastard verdict’). It is claimed that we originally only had 2 – Proven and Not Proven which reflected the fact that juries were only there to decide on the evidence. The Not Guilty verdict is believed to have come in because juries wanted to stress their belief in the innocence of the accused. The effect has ulitmately been to taint the Not Proven verdict with the suggestions that the accused is probably guilty but the evidence is not conclusive or that the jury is convinced of the guilt but does not want to convict because of sympathy with the accused’s crcumstances – mercy killings, for example.
I think that most of us are reasonably happy with our jury system, Not perfect but far from broken. As in England, the judge rules on the law and decides the sentence and the jury is restricted to considering the evidence.The simple majority means that we do not have hung juries and the need for expensive retrials. It also makes it more difficult for a jury to be nobbled or obstructed by a small minority as can happen in England where the majority has to be at worst 10:2 or 9:3 for conviction if I understand their system correctly.
On the juror who googled and then shared her information with her fellow jurors, I have absolutely no sympathy and she deserved everything she got, in my opinion, if only for the ‘pour encourager les autres’ reason like poor Admiral Byng.
Thanks Cuprum. Interesting that you have such a low opinion of magistrates. While I accept that they are not professionally trained, I was under the impression that they were on the whole good, decent, reasonably intelligent people who offered their services free of charge. While they may make many small mistakes, are there many, in your experience, that are truly serious? What is the worst that has happened? I have never been before a British magistrate, so I have almost no knowledge of how they behave.
Thank you John. I had the feeling that you chaps did things differently, though they are not that far removed from what happens down south. Interesting what you say about the ‘bastard verdict’. I have not heard that expression before, but it does seem apt. Damming in the way that the question, ‘when did you stop beating your wife’, damns the person to whom it is addressed.
While I understand that there are plenty of reasons and excuses for a person to be relieved of jury service, I wonder to what extent the courts endeavour to find out whether an individual is suitable. I mean, I would love to do it, regardless of whether I was qualified or not. Would anybody investigate my background? Would they check to see if I was deaf, or non-English speaking or bi-polar for example? In the TV series, one of the characters is a fireman who would automatically have been excused. But so keen was he to attend that he told his manager that he was going on holiday. I am sure that there would be many people who, though lacking the language skills for example, would not admit to such and would perform as requested.
Finally, and this is the crunch question, if you were accused of a serious crime and were given the choice of trial by jury or by a panel of 3 judges what would you choose? Would that choice depend on whether or not you were guilty?
Sipu – I have a downer on Magistrates as I have been involved in so many cases where they simply do not facilitate justice being done. It isn’t necessarily their fault, and yes you are correct, they are usually fair, intelligent, kindly souls. However, this stops them from making strong decisions as they always worry about getting it wrong. I admire them for volunteering of course, but summary justice would be much better executed by Stipendiary Magistrates who are professionals.
As for your final question: it would depend on the offence, the level of evidence and exactly how Innocent I was! It would also depend on where in the world I was, the political situation, and the trustworthiness of the prosecuting agency.
But, if pushed, I’d plead guilty if guilty to avoid a trial and get a lesser sentance and elect trial by jury if innocent!
Thanks Cuprum. I appreciate your input.
Hello Sipu: I’m late here as usual and my (non-lawyer, non resident) input may not be relevant to the UK.
I have been called for Jury duty five times and served only once, being called so often is not unusual in a small state like Delaware with an active court system, being excluded so often is not unusual either for folks like me, most of the cases being brought were violent crimes of some sort. The process is similar to that of the UK, the pool for any trial (about 50 members) is addressed on their duties and the rules explained, there is a written test of the potential jurors understanding of the rules and some members are excluded as a result. The prosecution and defense teams can “challenge with cause” any selection and can also lodge “peremptory challenges”.
Some observations.
The only trial for which I served was a “White Collar” embezzlement, the others were a variety of violent inner city black on black crimes.
In all cases except the White Collar one it was clear that the defense did not want (a) White males or (b) any college graduates on the jury and they had multiple challenges and made some fairly transparent arguments for their selection or rejection. The final jury in each of those cases was disproportionately female and black (or both).
The embezzlement was exactly the opposite, the defense seemingly believing a jury of white male breadwinners may be more sympathetic to their client.
Clearly there is a great deal of manipulation of the jury makeup going on here, this could be unique to the US system. I found it a little depressing that the system was so easily manipulated by the professionals, but in the end the jury selected seemed to do a pretty good job, more despite the lawyers than because of them.
As a result my view is perhaps a little jaundiced, I think the system here could stand some significant improvement but in general it does deliver the right result most of the time.
As a poster case on how not to do it, here’s a little report on the make up of the jury for the infamous OJ murder trial.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/jurypage.html
On a lighter note one of the many questions one is asked during the process of selection is whether you know a) the accused or any of his family b) any of the lawyers involved or c) any senior law enforcement or court personnel
In a rush of honesty I admitted that the Attorney General of the State of Delaware was my next door neighbor and that my next door neighbor on the other side was his mother. When asked if I had any dealings with him, I further confessed that occasionally he mowed my lawn in the summer and I cleared the snow from his driveway in the winter, strictly on a “no obligation” basis. This was not deemed a valid reason for my rejection.
Hi LW. Thank you. I was aware of the jury selection process in the UK, (Hey, I have read John Grisham!) though perhaps not the level of detail or the nature of the questions asked. I think that is the opposite end of the scale from what takes place in the UK, where not enough investigation is carried out into the suitability of jurors. I am afraid that none of it changes my view that the system is flawed. I would however, like to hear from anyone who has first hand experience of other legal systems.
I was living in the US when OJ was arrested. I remember coming back from work and switching on TV. Virtually every channel was broadcasting the ‘slow speed chase’. A few days later, Dominos Pizza announced record sales for that particular day. One can see how commerce and the law have an interest in working together. Justice, I think, is of secondary importance.
I imagine that Delaware must be a tricky place to maintain anonymity. Lovely story about the DA.