Struggling with jury verdict

[TossACoinToYourWitcher]

Name change for this for obvious reasons and for obvious reasons I'm being deliberately vague. Am not a new poster, MNHQ can verify that if needs be.

I was on a jury. After some deliberation we came to a verdict, but for me personally it was at no point an easy decision. However the evidence we had meant we had to come to that decision.

Now further information that we weren't privy to has come to light and I really believe the wrong verdict was given.

Just wondering if anyone has been through something similar and how you came to terms with it. I'm struggling today and feeling a lot of guilt regarding the decision I took along with the other jurors.

Did you find not guilty? I would find it easier to live with a guilty person walking free than an innocent person being imprisoned. The system is meant to skew in that direction too. If you weren’t privy to certain information that isn’t your fault. All you can hope is that the victim is getting support so they feel validated and believed (if it is that sort of crime).

You had a specific role. It wasn't to find out the truth, or make the right decision. It was to make a decision based on the evidence you had. Which you did.

Many other people were involved - did the barristers do enough, did the witnesses all come forward and tell the whole story? Did the police investigate as they should? Did the prosecution and the defence prepare properly?

Yours was a tiny role, shared among 12, in a much bigger situation.

You are also the person with the least choice about being involved.

This must be very hard. And if there was information withheld from the jury, I suspect that it's as PP has suggested, a guilty person is still free. The trouble is, though, it's the cornerstone of our justice system, and this is why the material was withheld, as you were being asked to judge that case, on that evidence. You did your duty - you considered the evidence before you, and whether there was reasonable doubt based on that evidence.

Surely the role of the Jury is to.find some one guilty or not beyond all reasonable doubt Based on the evidence given ?it's supposed to.be based on evidence not jurors ,personal feelings .

If it's information about previous accusations or convictions it's the way it has to be and you made s decision based on the evidence put before you.

I did jury service a few years ago. We also found the defendant not guilty as there was not enough evidence, but all of us thought he was guilty. It was very hard to accept, but that is the way the justice system works.

You did the best you could with the information you had. I'm sorry it's left you feeling that way. The feelings did improve over time for me, I hope they will for you as well.

Yes it's information about previous convictions and yes a guilty person has gone free. Plus the stuff I have seen on social media since the verdict was announced suggests that the defendant has not learnt anything from their involvement in the case and the terrible consequences that arose.

As some of you pointed out, we could only go on the evidence. But it's breaking my heart to know this person is free to do the same again.

AliciaWhiskers Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that you managed to deal with it.

It's awful to know, but it is not your responsibility. You were a tiny part, and you did the right thing.

When I get angry and want to change the criminal justice system, I tie myself up in knots trying to work out how.

Yes it's not perfect. But it's as good as we can make it.

It’s horrible to learn that they are most likely guilty and that they have gone on to further crimes. However it really isn’t your fault if information was withheld or the CPS/ police didn’t present a strong enough case. Depriving someone of their liberty is a huge thing and we don’t want to live in a society where that can be done lightly. In this particular case justice may not have been done but by doing your part as faithfully and carefully as you were able to, you have upheld the rule of law none the less.

That's the way it is ,the Jury are not party to.previous convictions because it would possibly/ probably influence their decision .

That sounds tough @TossACoinToYourWitcher
I've never sat on a jury but I've been on the receiving end of a verdict.
My dd was murdered 4yrs ago. The jury returned a NOT PROVEN VERDICT. I was devastated several members of the jury looked visibly upset and kept their heads down.
The Accused had a long list of previous convictions that the jury knew nothing about.
The Justice system is a joke in this country.

When I served, the judge was explicit about the importance of coming to a not guilty verdict if there was any doubt at all.

As long as, as a group, you decided that there was sufficient doubt of the person's guilt, then you did the right thing. Irrespective of whether they committed the crime. It's the process.

Even with additional crimes that you weren't privvy to, that still doesn't mean they are guilty of this crime.

If new evidence has come to light, and it is enough to prosecute/release depending on which way the verdict went, I assume that the defence/prosecution will want a re-trial, and if it is as significant as you say, it will be accepted.

Now further information that we weren't privy to has come to light

You can only do your best based on the evidence that you were given, you did all you could legally do. But I’m sorry you’re feeling this way. I still struggle with the cases I was a juror on and I didn’t have any of the follow up you did so I can see why you’re unhappy.

My advice? Step away. You shouldn’t be making yourself feel terrible by looking them up on social media. You did your role and now it’s time to move on.

From what you've said there isn't new evidence about what the person was on trial for but just that the person has previous convictions.

You had to make a decision on the evidence of that incident.

It is normal procedure that previous convictions are not given to the jury there are exceptional circumstances but it is exceptional.

ParkheadParadise that's awful. So sorry for your loss

Don't worry juries are what we have and are far from perfect. When I was on a jury,mostly female) (sex case) we were sent to the jury room almost straight away while discussions went on with the judge. Soon as we were in the jury room the chairwoman said 'well he's obviously guilty he looks the type' some of the others agreed. Didn't matter from then on what was said in court he was guilty as he looked the type and besides the police wouldn't have charged him if they didn't think he was guilty. A lot of the evidence sounded like nonsense.

As far as the chairwoman and most of the jury were concerned they only had to show he may have done it not that he must have done it. The idea of beyond reasonable doubt was only for murder as far as they were concerned.

Juries are not reliable but what else do we have.

Unfortunately it was up to the prosecution to present a strong enough case and persuade you. It's up to the Jury to appraise the evidence and come to a verdict.

However the evidence we had meant we had to come to that decision.
What does this mean?

That is how the system works.

They do not reveal past convictions to AVOID prejudicing the jury.

You are proof that this is the right call.

I had similar; in my case we couldn't return a verdict because we couldn't come to even a majority decision. I still personally believe the defendant was guilty (of a crime that I found despicable). I found it very hard indeed to deal with, at the time and for a while after.

In my case though I don't know about any further evidence. That must be even harder. I do sympathise. However, for your sanity I really think you have to try to step away, stop reading about it etc.

However the evidence we had meant we had to come to that decision.What does this mean? It means that a jury can ONLY convict or acquit on the evidence presented. Not on someone 'looking the type', 'gut feeling', 'just knowing they did it' etc etc. And also, importantly, not on thinking they probably did do it; the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the court must be satisfied that the defendant is guilty on the balance of probabilities.

One of my fellow jurors summed it up for me by saying that while she thought the defendant did commit the crime, she didn't feel it was possible based on the evidence to find them guilty, and therefore her decision had to be to find them not guilty.

It is hard, and it almost certainly sometimes means people who are guilty go free, but as our judge told us, this is not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent. Hopefully it means more innocent people have the right decision made about them than the reverse.

Thanks all. It's been helpful to read these comments. I'll definitely step away from social media. Have already seen one comment suggesting myself and fellow jurors should be hung

I can't explain the evidence thing without going into the details of the case, but it wasn't about feelings or looks etc, it was about what the law says and how the evidence did or did not fit with that. The old "got off on a technicality" chestnut I suppose.

There is a reason it is structured as it is, with the jury receiving guidance, etc. You did all you could,