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.

The vow you took was one to make a decision based solely on the evidence before you. You complied with that vow.

Previous convictions are kept out for good reason. They would have a disproportionate effect on the jury, and mere fact that someone has done something before doesn't automatically mean that they've done it again. It's important to look at the actual evidence of this crime rather than historic evidence that isn't directly related.

I just want to echo the same sentiment to you that has been given throughout this thread.
You did your very best within a very broken system. You couldn't have done any more than you did. It's not a rare situation to be in. I am sorry for the distress that this has caused you, but please accept that you have done all that you could.

I was sexually abused and the man who did it got away with it because previous information was not made available.

It's just a flawed system.

People who feel you should be held accountable have no idea what they are talking about. You have constraints to work within and it isnt as easy as guilty, not guilty.

Yes it's information about previous convictions and yes a guilty person has gone free

Just because a person has previous convictions doesn't mean that they are guilty the next time they are up in court.

Just because a person has previous convictions doesn't mean that they are guilty the next time they are up in court

^^this

My brother was on a jury in a case where they all perfectly certain the defendant was heavily involved in criminal activities, but the evidence simply didn't come close to proving the offence with which he was charged, so they had no choice but to acquit. Brother was foreman of the jury, and he said the prosecution looked so furious he was quite nervous about leaving the court in case they were hanging around waiting.

Theres a semi-famous Hull killer who got away with slitting his wives thoats something ridiculous like 4 times, cos it wasnt revealed he had been tried for murder before at each trial. I really dont think it should be held back as infomation.

@Equanimitas
I'm not proud to admit this. When the verdict was returned in my dd's case. My brother completely lost his shit and stood up and started shouting at the jury and the Accused.
The judge threatened to detain him. The jury looked terrified.

Why is evidence about the character of the defendent or about anything they did in the past allowed if previous trial cant be mentioned? its treating it like game imo when it anything but.

When I did jury service I was amazed at how some of the jurors did not appear to listen to the judge's instructions and we had to keep sending up questions for clarification, and the two jurors that told us they had made their minds up before the evidence was presented, one that the defendant looked innocent and the other that they were guilty as lived on a notorious estate.

*the same two now I think of it!

As others have said, you can only make the decision based on the evidence. They can't tell you about a person's background and stop you googling them too. It must be very difficult to come to terms with but the legal team, judge, police and everyone else feels exactly the same way.

@ParkheadParadise - everyone in Scotland knows fine well that "not proven" means guilty as hell and that the Procurator Fiscal couldn't put a strong enough case together. Everyone knows. Not that it's any comfort to the family left behind.

I'm not going to ask how long ago it was as you may not want to say. But when I did mine (which was a unanimous guilty verdict in a murder trial) it lived with me for at least a year. I thought about it every day, mulled over the evidence for months. That was without what you've gone through. So it is not surprising that this is having such a massive effect on you, but hopefully it will fade with time. Do you have anyone IRL to talk your feelings through with?

And why cant we use trained juries? its like we inbuild the weaknesses of democracy to our legal system.

I sat on a jury years ago and one of the cases involved threats to kill. We found them guilty and it was almost a relief when the previous convictions were read out. We also had a couple of jurors who wanted to get out so any verdict would do, one person wanting to recreate 12 Angry Men and everyone else somewhere in between. Ine juror decided that as the defendant wore a suit, they were "a good boy" and the prosecution was telling lies. I certainly think that a bjt of pre-trial selection or training would help people understand what they're supposed to be doing, followed by post-trial support if necessary.

@ParkheadParadise I am so sorry to hear about your DD and that the system failed you.