Juries

[hc4361]

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?

[sunny-dave]

You don't want a 'knee jerk' response either - it's not a beauty contest.

If I was (god forbid) on the jury of a long/complex trial, I'd be taking copious notes & want to work through them with the rest of the jury.

[heathfield]

There is no time limit. Imposing a time limit can be seen as putting undue pressure on a jury. It's recognised that jurors could feel obliged to change their opinion just to allow a verdict to be reached within the time limit. Imposing a time limit could give immediate grounds for an appeal.

[scooping]

But can't the jury say, at any time, we are unable to reach a verdict...

[jno]

whether I was a defendant, a victim or a juror, I'd want the jury to take as long as it takes.

Debate can change people's minds, as in Twelve Angry Men; that's what the system is for.

[heathfield]

Yes. Then it is called a 'hung jury'.

[hc4361]

sunny-dave, I don't believe that juries in complex trials such as the Guinness share trading fraud should be composed of the public. Far too complex and specialised for the 'man on the omnibus' to comprehend.

I agree that time limits would put pressure on juries to arrive at a verdict.

[scooping]

If citizens can't be trusted to deliberate on complicated matters (fraud trials etc) then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to raise children or to vote. It's a silly argument.

[heathfield]

Having a jury of financial experts in the likes of the Guinness case could be problematic. It could be a long and complex process in ensuring that none of the jurors had any commercial interest whatsoever in the verdict!

[Canary42]

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.

[Dodger666]

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.

[woofgang]

I think we go down a dangerous route when its legally declared that "the man (or woman) in the street" cannot understand this or that and therefore juries for that kind of trial need to be composed of experts.

[hc4361]

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.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/23/transport.constitution

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.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/51625/vicky-pryce-jurors-%E2%80%93-were-they-stupid-or-just-confused

One juror preferred to listen to her iPod instead of the witness evidence:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467280/Facing-jail-juror-hijab-hid-MP3-player.html

[grasscarp]

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.

[hc4361]

I was a witness in a crown court trial and stayed on in the public gallery after I had given evidence.
One juror was a young man who made it obvious he had made his mind up from the start that the defendant was innocent. I was quite outraged by his behaviour.