Mistrial Query..

[CokeTulip]

I'm just curious. You know when a trial is stopped from going ahead for whatever reason...I think this is called a mistrial but correct me if I'm wrong. Eg -jury members are too ill to attend or do a runner/die. (I'm sure there are other reasons too!) I have read about cases where there have been 3 mistrials (same case).... it must be difficult as delays etc. Is the court allowed to give up on it if it keeps happening?

Do you know of any mistrial cases where there have had problem after problem (more that 3 mistrials) Also what happens if something happens to your barrister mid trial - does the trial have to start all over again?

[FredPuli43]

Distinguish between where the jury has been unable to agree on a verdict and the others. If a jury cannot agree on a verdict, it is discharged and a retrial ordered. If the jury cannot agree on a verdict in the retrial, the convention is that the prosecution does not ask for a third trial and the defendant(s) are discharged, the prosecution saying that they will offer no evidence. After all, if two juries can't agree it's tantamount to a reasonable doubt.

In the others, it is quite possible for there to be three trials. I've never known it happen ; you'd need to be very unlucky to lose 4 jurors twice (nine is the minimum number remaining for a verdict to be returned) or for something so untoward happening that the judge orders a retrial on two separate occasions, or a combination of those.

[FredPuli43]

If a barrister is unable to continue what happens depends on why. It may be that the client has told him something which makes it impossible for him to continue to represent the client, in which case the judge may well say that the trial is to continue with the client unrepresented, though the client may object. Otherwise, if counsel is taken ill and an adjournment would be pointless because of the prognosis, or if he or she dies, there will be retrial, unless the defence is employing two or more barristers and one of the others has been present throughout and can continue the case in his or her colleague's absence.

[CokeTulip]

Fred - Thank you.
A long trial (Brookes & Coulson type trials) must run the risk of a few things going wrong. You could have a wig infestation!

It must be awful for the families if there are mistrials. The one I read about was historical and a murder that took 18 months because of the stops and starts. I think it can appear abit freaky but as you say there are reasons why the have a few mistrials.

A programme on about antiques earlier and they showed a court room in tact (historical 18__? I was only half paying attention) and in big letters on the wall - Male Jury ...wonder if they sat separate to female but I didn't see a sign for Female jury. Seems odd - as surely they would have had to get together regarding the verdict.

[CokeTulip]

It was the old crown court in Dorchester - 1834 (is exactly as it was then). You might know it Fred...Flog it covered a bit about the Dorset labourers trial in that yr.

[FredPuli43]

Years ago,Coke Tulip, juries were almost invariably male, aptly described as "male, middle aged, middle class, and middle minded". That was because there was a property qualification and few women qualified as owners. The sign for male jurors was probably to indicate that there were separate facilities for men and women, for when they were assembled but not deliberating. That would be in keeping with the attitude to women then. The jury would decide the case in the one room.

Incidentally, it was only in recent times that there have been separate robing rooms and facilities for women barristers; the one in the High Court is in a small, dark room, far away, in every sense, from the two very large robing rooms, each with its attendants, which the men have and which are set either side of the entrance. (When a barrister starts out, he chooses which of the two he will use and never changes to the other in the whole of his career). When the courts were built, there were no women barristers