News1 min ago
Juries
14 Answers
How long can a jury spend deliberating their verdicts? Is there a limit, and if not should there be?
Considering that a jury must believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty to return that verdict can it fairly be said that once a jury is in to the second week of deliberations there cannot be that certainty?
Considering that a jury must believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty to return that verdict can it fairly be said that once a jury is in to the second week of deliberations there cannot be that certainty?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hc4361. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.It's up to the Judge/Barristers to make things clear for the jury, they're paid enough for goodness sake. Specialist juries would be subject to phoney selection - currently the system is reasonably random.
It is up to the discretion of the Judge as to how long the jury take before the judge declares if/when a majority verdict will be acceptable, ditto declare a re-trial, otherwise there is no limit.
It is up to the discretion of the Judge as to how long the jury take before the judge declares if/when a majority verdict will be acceptable, ditto declare a re-trial, otherwise there is no limit.
There was an amusing story in the press a few days ago about a court being concerned how long a jury had been deliberating on what they thought was a simple case. When the judge sent someone to see what was keeping them they discovered they had reached a verdict and the foreman had been ringing the bell to attract attention but unbeknown to anyone the bell had been turned off.
I saw that, Dodger :D
I'm glad I wasn't a juror on this 2 year trial that collapsed after the jurors went on strike. It cost the taxpayer many millions of pounds.
http:// www.the guardia n.com/u k/2005/ mar/23/ transpo rt.cons titutio n
Trials collapsing due to jury behaviour is not rare, unfortunately. Falling asleep during evidence, racial bias, internet research of defendants and witnesses, tweeting from the jury box, a juror complained that another juror had very bad body odour - all reasons for trials of very serious crimes to collapse. A juror who happened to be a police officer failed to mention he had been involved in the investigation of the case - trial collapsed.
There is no requirement for jurors to be able to read English, which I find worrying as much of the evidence is presented in written form.
Look at the questions the jury asked the judge during their deliberations in the Vicky Pryce trial, which had to abandoned due to the jury's inability to understand their function.
http:// www.the week.co .uk/uk- news/51 625/vic ky-pryc e-juror s-%E2%8 0%93-we re-they -stupid -or-jus t-confu sed
One juror preferred to listen to her iPod instead of the witness evidence:
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-46 7280/Fa cing-ja il-juro r-hijab -hid-MP 3-playe r.html
I'm glad I wasn't a juror on this 2 year trial that collapsed after the jurors went on strike. It cost the taxpayer many millions of pounds.
http://
Trials collapsing due to jury behaviour is not rare, unfortunately. Falling asleep during evidence, racial bias, internet research of defendants and witnesses, tweeting from the jury box, a juror complained that another juror had very bad body odour - all reasons for trials of very serious crimes to collapse. A juror who happened to be a police officer failed to mention he had been involved in the investigation of the case - trial collapsed.
There is no requirement for jurors to be able to read English, which I find worrying as much of the evidence is presented in written form.
Look at the questions the jury asked the judge during their deliberations in the Vicky Pryce trial, which had to abandoned due to the jury's inability to understand their function.
http://
One juror preferred to listen to her iPod instead of the witness evidence:
http://
Juries are a complete cross section. On one that I was part of, one chap was just 18 and totally uninterested in anything going on. One woman refused to agree a man was guilty of something because she had a son! Another chap was so bright that the judge said he was getting better questions from the jury than the barristers! It is a very interesting experience.