ChatterBank2 mins ago
Max Clifford Trial
The Jury have now been deliberating for 7 days. Since last Wednesday, the Judge has given permission for them to come back with a minority verdict, ie 9 to 1.
Does any of our resident experts here on AB know if there is a maximum number of days that a Jury can spend on deliberations, before the Judge has to step in and order a re-trial ? Or is up to the Judges discretion ?
Does any of our resident experts here on AB know if there is a maximum number of days that a Jury can spend on deliberations, before the Judge has to step in and order a re-trial ? Or is up to the Judges discretion ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. 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, Mikey.
He will firstly ask them if there is a likliehood that they may, given time, reach a unanimous verdict. Seems this has already been done and the answer was "no".
The judge then informs them whether or not he will accept a majority verdict. (This is sometimes not acceptable). If it is acceptable they are left to deliberate further. I should think quite soon the judge will be asking them if there is a realistic prospect of them reaching a majority (9-1) verdict given enough time.
Perhaps there is scope to follow the example of the election of Pope Gregory X. This took almost three years from November 1268 to September 1271. During their deliberations three of the twenty-three cardinals died and one resigned. After two years the Cardinals were locked in and had their rations reduced to bread and water; finally the roof of their palace was removed to encourage them to come to a decision !!!
He will firstly ask them if there is a likliehood that they may, given time, reach a unanimous verdict. Seems this has already been done and the answer was "no".
The judge then informs them whether or not he will accept a majority verdict. (This is sometimes not acceptable). If it is acceptable they are left to deliberate further. I should think quite soon the judge will be asking them if there is a realistic prospect of them reaching a majority (9-1) verdict given enough time.
Perhaps there is scope to follow the example of the election of Pope Gregory X. This took almost three years from November 1268 to September 1271. During their deliberations three of the twenty-three cardinals died and one resigned. After two years the Cardinals were locked in and had their rations reduced to bread and water; finally the roof of their palace was removed to encourage them to come to a decision !!!
I have only been on a Jury once and that was about 8 years ago, in a Coroners Court. It lasted just the one day. It was about an industrial accident and it was obvious to almost all of us what caused the accident. But we had one woman with us who just didn't understand anything about what going on at all. She at least admitted that she was a bit thick ( her words, not mine ! ) and gladly went along with the rest of us.
What it can like for those poor Jurors who have to spend weeks and months attending some cases I just can't imagine. The new Hillsborough Inquests, for instance, are scheduled to take the rest of the year ! As a freelance worker, I would be bankrupt long before then.
What it can like for those poor Jurors who have to spend weeks and months attending some cases I just can't imagine. The new Hillsborough Inquests, for instance, are scheduled to take the rest of the year ! As a freelance worker, I would be bankrupt long before then.
I thought the same Mikey as quite alot depends on this
I am ready with my machine gun cocked and loaded if there is a not guilty verdict as predictably the whole charade has been such a waste of money ( that would be our money )
and I am waiting for the DPP to say again:
oh yes yes the system is MEaNT to work like this
I am ready with my machine gun cocked and loaded if there is a not guilty verdict as predictably the whole charade has been such a waste of money ( that would be our money )
and I am waiting for the DPP to say again:
oh yes yes the system is MEaNT to work like this
Papal elections
ya but....
after this shenanigan, the stock of the papacy was so low
that the next time they said we have to elect a saint
and so they elected Celestine V who was so saintly that he forsook the palace and lived in a mud hut in the yard.
He created eight French Cardinals 'because they asked him'
and so when he went ( first abdication) 1295
the road was open for the Great Schism and the French Pope [ see above geddit ? ] to up sticks and go to Avignon.
The English king identified with the one who stayed in Rome - rather obviously
and another story
Judge Jeffries ( 1687 ) for it was he
got so pissed off with a jury that he imprisoned and fined them
involving Wm Penn of pennsylcvania and penns station
and thereafter the juries were sacrosanct.
Jeffries went the way f the world
ya but....
after this shenanigan, the stock of the papacy was so low
that the next time they said we have to elect a saint
and so they elected Celestine V who was so saintly that he forsook the palace and lived in a mud hut in the yard.
He created eight French Cardinals 'because they asked him'
and so when he went ( first abdication) 1295
the road was open for the Great Schism and the French Pope [ see above geddit ? ] to up sticks and go to Avignon.
The English king identified with the one who stayed in Rome - rather obviously
and another story
Judge Jeffries ( 1687 ) for it was he
got so pissed off with a jury that he imprisoned and fined them
involving Wm Penn of pennsylcvania and penns station
and thereafter the juries were sacrosanct.
Jeffries went the way f the world
