Anyone here a crown court judge?

I think DH agrees with the verdict 7/10 but respects their decision all the time

When my husband did jury duty, 3 jurors spoke almost no English at all and another juror ended up translating for them.

Oh yes, that would be interesting.

I can’t sleep so I’ve name changed for this thread. Been a very long time poster and lurker. I’m happy to ask DH anything about trials if people have specific questions?

I know that sometimes he has disagreed with the decision the jury make but in his mind it is the justice system and he’s at peace with that.

A couple of times he has had to re explain things to a jury and gets a bit twitchy when they ask the same questions over and over again because it shows they don’t actually understand what it is they’re deciding on? Also it’s stressful for everyone as the questions have to be asked in open court so everyone is recalled via tannoy and it’s not because they’ve got a decision?

I remember one case where he had the foreperson ask essentially the same question 5 x in 2 days and then he just had to say “if it is not X you have to find them guilty of Y, if X is the answer then you must find them not guilty of Y manslaughter is not a option, you either convict of murder or not’ I’ll try and get him to explain it to me in more normal terms! I understand basics but he couldn’t do my job of being a surgeon and I definitely couldn’t do his job!!

I wish sometimes we were still in Australia because the judge does a really really thorough job of summing up all the details for the jury after the closing arguments and it’s really easy for the jury to understand. It can take days for the judge to do all the summing up.

This is the frightening thing. How many people could be given 100% evidence but decide "oh but look he's a nice guy, he has manners/looks kind" Anyone can put on a good show to mask their true personalities particularly narcs. It is quite worrying. I do think that jurors are chosen though and not as random as we may be led to believe. Some people have been called upon 2/3 times in their life while others (me) have never been called.

Aren't judges ineligible for jury service? So while they might have cases where they don't agree with the verdict, they won't know what discussions lead to the decision.

I haven't done jury service, but a friend did, and she said it was interesting how poor some people's critical thinking skills were. I

I also remember my mother doing it - she had a fairly straightforward breaking and entering case. One of the key pieces of evidence was, who else would be driving round in a truck with loads of tools in the back at 3am, unless they were up to know good - and realised Dad could be doing that, because he was a farmer, and if the cattle get out in the middle of the night, you have to deal with it, and his Landrover always had all his tools in the back, which would include a crowbar, wire cutters and all sorts - though in Dad's case, not catapults (which are apparently used to hit burglar alarms.)

We have two people at work on jury service at the moment. Two that I know of, at least.

I was once in a coffee shop and a lady on the next table was regaling her friend - very loudly! - with her experience of being on a jury. First it was the charge and the evidence, then actual conversations that happened in the jury room 'one man was a company director, he said he thought abc and xyz'. I was sitting there thinking omg, I can't believe she's happily telling all this to the whole cafe, is she mad?!

But my jaw nearly hit the table when she said 'of course I could tell just by looking at him that he'd done it. As soon as I set eyes on him I knew he was guilty.'

The concept of juries has made me very uneasy ever since!
Although I'm also nervous of the judge only model, the Family Courts show what a shitshow that can be.

I’m due to do jury service early next year, and I must say, reading this thread is interesting, but somewhat concerning!

I'm not sure thar would help. The jury I was on covered a wide range of educational abilities, ages and mix of men and women. The most obstructive people to the process were 2 mature professional men who seemed to want to bully everyone into their way of thinking and triedto make evidence fit their agenda. Everyone else regardless of background seemed able to weigh up the evidence in a logical way.

Yaaaawn
Zzzzz

Is this boring thread still a thing

Not a judge but the handwringing over this in England is ridiculous. There is no right to jury trial in Scotland and we still have a proper judicial system.

It must be much harder for a fair trial to be ensured with the prevalence of social media these days. Everyone has an opinion, and very confident in their assertions even though they would know they were wrong, if they’d bothered to actually read the article they’re commenting on.

So many bonkers comments on the Paul Doyle trial this week make me think perhaps involving the general public in making decisions of guilt or innocence is such a good idea.

Even though he changed his plea to guilty, so many comments say he must be innocent, as he couldn’t have possibly have planned driving into a crowd when he woke up that morning. Lots of people asserting that it must have been PTSD, although I’m not sure that’s been claimed by his defence barrister. Then there are others saying he’s not the same guy they removed from the car, or he’s been set up. Or more cryptically, “there’s some more going on”.

I worked in the criminal system on the defence side. I welcome this proposal. A judge unlike a magistrate is a well educated person on law. They will make their decision purely based on the facts and whether the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I do think jurors base decisions on media (even though they are supposed to disregard this) and how witnesses and defendants come across in the dock.

Yes some guilty defendants may be found innocent - guilty beyond reasonable doubt is quite a high bar compared with the civil court of balance of probability. Also innocent defendants will still be found guilty. But this already happens. But a judge will base their decision on their understanding of the the law and the evidence played before them

I’m also a police officer, have done jury duty once. Had one case of GBH and the defendant admitted it in the box, he was trying to go along the route of self defence however in brief the facts were the victim had wound him up in another pub, they happened to bump into each other a few pubs later and the defendant launched into the victim unprovoked.

We had one lady on the jury say “he wants to become a security guard and better his life, I feel sorry for him, if we say guilty we will ruin his life”. No, he did that himself when he attacked the victim! 🤦‍♀️

We found him guilty in the end with a 10/2 majority but the deliberations were hard work! Some just didn’t get the fact we have to go off the evidence, not how we feel!

Talk about the court room but not the jury room.

I have done jury service twice - once when I had just turned 18 and quite frankly didnt have a clue. One case a man walked in said 'he didnt do it, am not saying anything else'. He didnt contribute to the discussion or give his reason why. I found both times very interesting and both times we had a very strong professional person who 'helped' guide us though I have wondered if they weren't there would the discussions and outcome changed?

All I know is I have a family friend who is a judge and they get very frustrated (although they sympathise) that so many intelligent educated professionals find reasons not to do jury service.

That probably tells you all you need to know

This. I found the same at sheriff court.

During the discussion some people were fabricating 'evidence' which was never even presented based on their own supposition and prejudice. Completely making things up.

Was appalled and never want to be on a jury again. Have no faith in it at all.

Yes, our judge guided us well. But that doesn’t mean all of the jurors listened or understood.

On mine, one didn’t understand at all, but was willing for those of us who did understand to explain it. Another didn’t understand, didn’t care and wouldn’t listen to anything. Another didn’t understand, but was so arrogant - talking over people trying to explain.

The crown court judge has no idea what goes on the jury room. I do, I’ve been in there. It was utterly appalling. I wanted to report one juror for breaking their oath (ie they weren’t making their decision based on the evidence) but I felt it would just cause a shitload of trouble. So I didn’t.

I’m afraid “thick as mince” applied to the minority of people in my jury room. But that minority was enough to fuck everything up.