Feeling awful after jury service

[Jn5]

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 it has finished, and we can seek out further information that we weren't privy to, and lots of time to run thing over and over again in my head - I’m wondering if 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.

There’s a saying that it’s better to have 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to prison - and that really is true on a societal level. Society would fall apart if you could be imprisoned on a shaky case, and the damage to the innocent party in that case is much bigger than the ‘peace’ for the victim of their perpetrator going to prison (because sentencing doesn’t undo their victimisation).

repeating myself - that ship sailed years ago. Hundreds of wrongly convicted sub postmasters being just the latest example - not even outliers. Then Andrew Malkinson. Or that poor chap just freed after over 30 years banged up (and probably having to spend the rest of his life working to repay the prison service for his stay).

Guildford 4
Birmingham 6

I feel for you OP. Jury duty can be emotionally challenging, but the role of the jury is to reach a verdict on the evidence presented in court and beyond reasonable doubt.

II doubt very much that something available on the internet was not considered with great scrutiny before the decision was taken as to whether or not it was admissible.

If there was a hole in the prosecution case then it is not the jury who have failed.

Please be kind to yourself. It’s an important public duty.

Can you access any kind of counselling to talk your feelings through?

Thank you all, you have already made it all a little clearer in my head.
Jury service should come with counselling, as it’s not clear cut. And a real burden to carry.

Jury members aren't obliged to vote 'guilty' even if they believe the accused is guilty. This may happen, for example, if they think the law is wrong or unfair.

It follows that the opposite can happen, that jury members may vote 'guilty' even if they don't believe there is enough evidence to convict, but are neverthe less convinced the accused is guilty.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

I hear you. 2.5 years ago I was a juror on a case that stayed with me for ages afterwards. We found the defendant guilty of all counts, but it wasn’t simple and sometimes I wonder what would have happened if we hadn’t reached unanimity. He was a monster who tormented two women, in a very short space of time. He had also been in and out of prison for violent crimes his whole life. We had none of this context, only the evidence, and thankfully there was enough to secure the conviction. But I was traumatised for months after.

My friend was raped and beaten up badly. Unless it's on the street by a stranger I think it's pretty impossible to get a conviction. That's the system and why people think twice about putting themselves through it.

Afterwards she was told he was put on sex offenders for a previous crime and had restraining orders. He probably done it many times and will continue to do so.

He was very charming so no reason to suspect to police check before being alone with him.

I just couldn't do jury service. I hope I'm.never called up

I’m such an emotional person, I think I would’ve beaten myself up either way. Since finishing and looking things up, I’ve not seen anything to suggest the accused’s guilt. More that the victim seems like a really decent person, and I feel awful we may have made his situation worse

Actually, aside from some very traumatic cases (which they do try and root out jurors who would struggle) it is immensely interesting and satisfying to do. I had a case of theft, one of assault and I can’t remember the other but ultimately everyone took it very seriously and you do feel like you are doing a civic duty. Many cases are cut and dry as the prosecution presents the case that is beyond reasonable doubt.

My sympathies OP, I dread being called for jury service, I worked with someone who got called to do it twice in a 5 yr period, ( I didn’t know that could happen) and they weren’t old.

He was particularly shaken by the second stint which was harrowing, he said he was traumatised by it and there was no counselling offered to the jurors afterwards.

I did jury service and was very lucky to get a corporate theft case which was interesting and led to a guilty conviction

I did give me an interest in court proceedings and I wondered just how hard it would be to do the same for a crime with a lesser amount of evidence or witnesses

I am actually reading a very good writer, a KC at the Old Bailey who has written a new book on exactly the issues for sexual abuse type cases because it is very hard for the jury to be certain

I don't recommend it as it covers cases and that might be too much but please know that your feelings are normal and enough to prompt a KC to try to understand the system

@EasternStandard .

WHat is the book please? It sounds interesting

A friend served on a jury for a historic abuse case and they couldn't convict because they all felt something had happened but couldn't say guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

DH got called up years ago but released in the end, he was relieved because it was an aggravated rape case and he really didn't want to have to listen to it. someone has to but I hope.It's never me on something like that

What I found interesting is that no previous convictions were mentioned until after the verdict to avoid unfair prejudice. I don’t know if this is always the case. This seems to mean that if a serial rapist had served his time it wouldn’t be mentioned if he was back in the dock after release. I sort of agree and disagree with that. Nothing you did was wrong and you can’t go back in time so just don’t worry about it now.

@HelloCheekyCat this her second book I'm on the first was 'Unlawful Killings' which covers general Old Bailey crime

This one is focussed on women and children and asks if we have a good system

I'm only on the first case and some is a hard read but she writes beautifully

The first chapter covers some of this thread, ie the jury is set up in a way that means we have to be certain.

The author is Wendy Joseph KC

Previous convictions are classed as ‘bad character’. The prosecution can make a bad character application and the court will rule whether it is admissible.
Clearly there is a high chance that the bad character will influence the defendant and it’s something the prosecution can use to show that the defendant has a propensity for committing that type of offence, but it has to be ventilated in front of the judge, with the defence being given an opportunity to say why they don’t think it should be put before the jury.

Try to think of your part on the jury is to facilitate a fair justice system and not to deliver justice

The burdens of proof are there for a reason and if they have not been met then it is not your fault. You have made a decision on a set of information you were given.

The system is there to protect the innocent as much as the guilty- how effective it is at this is not your responsibility. We can only go through the processes that are there.

Look, it sounds daft but whether or not the correct verdict was given isn’t just down to you, it’s down to the advocates. All you can do is come to your shared decision based on the facts you were told in court. It’s up to the advocates to present these facts to you. And they are the professionals here.

I have been a juror, and I do know how you feel. I feel confident in the verdicts we gave, but it still haunts me nonetheless and I do turn it over in my mind now and again.

Put it out of your mind as best you can, because there is literally nothing yo can do about it, and besides, it sounds like you performed the role of juror well.

“We all had a strong feeling something had happened but not enough evidence or proof regarding the charges themselves. Only a gut feeling.”

So you were obliged to acquit - you can’t convict on a “gut feeling”: it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. My DD did jury service some while back, and said that they found the defendant guilty of one charge but had to let another one go, because even though they were sure that he’d done it, the case was not proved against him. Which I think is right, otherwise we would all live in fear of capricious verdicts.

Thank you, I’ve been torturing myself. Other people’s take really does help.

Would love to hear your experience. I’m really struggling with the part where I feel we have let the victim down, whilst there was no hard evidence we could be sure of, I don’t believe the victim was lying, and that’s the worst part.

I feel like that would be a great option. As it warns the accused that they’re not considered innocent, and comforts the victim that they have been believed. I feel that in circumstances whereby there isn’t the evidence to convict, that ‘not proven’ answer does it’s job regardless.
The hard part for me is that we weren’t able to have a say to the victim that we didn’t doubt something happened, but couldn’t convict based on the evidence alone.
We did all say that that the prosecution did let the victim down with her questioning and presentation. The defence was much more put together.
Talking this through has really helped, thank you.

I'm sure I've heard the not proven verdict is being removed in Scotland.

As it warns the accused that they’re not considered innocent

So - in your book - being accused of a crime is as good as being guilty of it ?

Let's hope no one ever accuses you of a crime out of spite, racism, sexism, misogyny, mistaken identity or religious devotion then.

Your job as a juror was to determine whether the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have said "the evidence we had meant we had to come to that decision" (not guilty). So you did make the right decision. It's hard to see something so morally complex as black and white; but it is. You did the right thing. You couldn't and shouldn't have done anything else, and any other responsible person in your position would have done the same.

So don't feel bad. Know the jury system is imperfect. But it is the best we have.

And OP you know you couldn't bring back a guilty verdict based on not letting the victim down. The sentiment is so understandable but you know, with your brain and your heart, that you couldn't have done that - it would be wrong.

May I say that I am glad that consciencious and good members of the public like you sit on juries. If I were ever to be in the dock I would want serious and thoughtful jury members like yourself. You did the best you could, and from what you've said, made the right decision based on the evidence in front of you.

There are good legal reasons why you weren't allowed certain pieces of information while you were deciding. It is right that these reasons are upheld. If the justice system allowed those types of information to be known by the jury there would definitely be miscarriages of justice. Do not feel guilty. You did your job. Well done.