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.

Judges usually decide what evidence the jury do and do not see, so there can be inherent bias from the judges. The system is flawed; it sounds like you did the correct thing in “following the evidence”, that is what you were there to do. But understandable to feel you might have “let the victim down”

Re: Not Proven, or as the Scottish lawyer joke goes, 'not guilty but don't do it again' in rape and abuse cases, which are often historic, predominantly committed without witnesses and where evidence is sparse or very open to interpretation, it can cause problems, as some victims don't feel it's any sort of validation, and as 'the middle road' it doesn't provide the necessary closure. As a PP mentioned, and as is evidenced by the joke, it can also stigmatise those who are given a Not Proven verdict. The verdict is set to be abolished. IMO that's a mistake, in some cases it is by far the most appropriate verdict. as it can reflect the uncomfortable shades of grey that colours much decision-making around prosecution and punishment.

OP, regarding your feelings, by stating you felt the prosecution case was lacking, you as jurors made your feelings clear to the victim. It's not something that happens routinely and it's a clear indication that the victim was believed, but there was insufficient evidence to convict. I agree with a lot of the PPs who have tried to comfort you, we can't criminalise people on the vibes, police and prosecution have a job to do to tip the balance from 'sounds like he did it' to 'he couldn't not have'. Sometimes it's an insurmountable task, sometimes individuals fall short, sometimes it's judicial bias, sometimes jurors hate the police, sometimes it's a miscarriage of justice, sometimes a verdict gets overturned on appeal - and sometimes it's just the way it is.

Additionally no-one who has their case heard by a court is allowed to believe that there is a certain outcome. They'll have known this could go either way, and will hopefully be better supported to deal with the verdict than you have been. One cog shouldn't hold themselves responsible for the working of the whole clock. You did your best, and can do no more.

I was going to say I was given a number to call to speak if the cases I was on has troubled me. One was particularly horrific. Did you get a number in your pack?

If you contact the court clerk of the court you sat at they should have contacts for jurors support - this is for post trial as well as at the time.

They can get you any support you need. Courts are often good at taking care of jurors, and knowing some may hear horrific trials there is after care

Clearly not, as we came to a not guilty verdict.

You're probably not meant to tell everyone about it?

During the case, of course, we could not discuss. Once it is over it is not illegal to do so.

I sadly think that even the harshest sentences would not stop the violence against women. I of course support harsh sentencing for violence but it won’t stop it.

After the trial you must not talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom.

Do not post comments about the trial on social media, even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison

I had a very similar experience to you, many years ago.

I took comfort from the fact that I made my decision based only and solely on the evidence given to the jury. Some of my fellow jurists made the same decision as I did, but some expressed opinions that really grated with me.

There may have been evidence we, the jury, werent given. That would be down to councel and judge. I could only judge based on what we were told. There was very little disagreement between the defence and the prosecution on those actual facts on which I based my decision.

I was on a jury 20 years ago and still think about it and wonder whether we made the right decision. As a middle class girl from a little village, I'd not long moved to Glasgow when I was called up. It was really the first insight into total, systemic, cyclical poverty and the associated violence and abuse. It was a shock to the system.

The evidence presented to the court was of a pretty dreadful standard, and the defence agent absolutely phoned it in. I was shocked by the other jurors who mostly saw it as an absolute laugh, a chance to be off work and have a carry on. Their analysis of the evidence was non-existent. I appreciate that makes me sound up myself, but it is true - and pretty depressing.

I was a law student at the time and had been offered a traineeship as a procurator fiscal. I actually stepped away completely from criminal law and went into something different as I was so disillusioned with the whole experience. Really, being on a jury completely changed the trajectory of my life.

I don't feel that the poster here has given any identifying details about the case. She has said the defendant was found not guilty and that she is coming to terms with living with that decision, albeit knowing the letter of the law was followed. I don't feel she's broken any rule.

When I was on a jury, the judge pretty much directed us to find the detergent guilty - e.g. he ridiculed his story during his summation and reminded us that we didn't need to believe his story.

We found the guy guilty and then it turned out he had previous for dealing crack, numerous violent assaults, possession of a firearm, etc, and was awaiting sentencing for another crime the following week.

I think you're allowed to discuss your own thoughts and experience, but you're not allowed to discuss what was said by other people or how they voted, etc.

Yes not allowed to discuss what was discussed in the deliberation room

Not wanting to go into too much detail of the trial I was a juror member of, but it was a pretty horrific case to deal with which I still think of many years later.

What struck me was that neither prosecution or defence really presented a strong case, the prosecution probably shaded it and that came from evidence presented from audio, cctv and the victim who took the stand.

The issue which stays with me was how on deliberation by the jury, there was a number of them who had taken no notice of the case, not read their bundle, taken any notes during the trial and openly admitted they enjoyed not being at work but still getting paid. Then there were a few fellow jury memberswho didn't want to convict, irrespective of any evidence, as they didn't want to know they had been part of the defendants possibly being given custodial sentences.

It left me and one other juror who could not believe what we were hearing, strong words were had especially to those who had not taken any notice. Eventually they see sense and we basically spent the first few days of deliberation rerunning the trial ourselves going through the bundle page by page. It enabled the jury to eventually come to a majority decision but it was hard work.

What bothers me, is how sheer laziness and a not caring attitude was present in so many jury members, that had there not been a few others who took the job seriously, the verdict will have been given without any detailed examination of the evidence.

I am however still a supporter of the juror system as feel most of the time it is the fairest way to reach a verdict.

I was a juror a long time ago and its something I still think about from time to time. We found the defendant guily for some of the counts but not all. What I struggled with was clearly there were large parts of information that was missing that seemed so obvious. And also not knowing how much weight to give to certain things or knowing how reliable/accurate some of the data was eg cell site data.

With jury service you are essentially put with a group of strangers from all walks of life and somehow you have to come to a collective decision or not in some cases and that can be incredibly hard to do.

@Whisperingangel1 "What I struggled with was clearly there were large parts of information that was missing that seemed so obvious" - that is so right, especially during cross examination, there were a number of times I wanted to say to the barrister, please ask ........, or why didn't you ask........!

Reading this book some more given the defence barrister questions and overall process it sounds very traumatic, but also I'm not surprised sexual abuse etc cases are so hard to prosecute

It seems there's catches for avoiding definite guilt along the way

Same! So many questions I wanted answers too. And that seemed obvious to ask…

I was the foreman (forewoman?) on a SA case and we couldn't reach a verdict. I was absolutely convinced of his guilt but others felt unconvinced and lack of physical evidence. I suppose we legally did the right thing but still think of it often though it was many years ago.

If you think the defendant was probably guilty then you have to return a not-guilty verdict as you know. Beyond reasonable doubt is quite rightly a high bar. Sounds like you did everything right.

@schloss I always think of the saying 'judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury service'

I know far more people that got out of jury service that have completed it.

Op. We need decent people that do their duty and don't hide away and drop out. You did your best in the situation and that is all anyone could ask.

In all honesty I'd have taken that to the judge and asked for advice in a note

Well you came to the right decision then. You have to go on the evidence. Gut feeling that something happened isn't enough. The prosecution have to prove their case enough so that the jury is sure someone is guilty. If the person was guilty but the case presented wasn't good enough that means that either the prosecution/police etc didn't do a good enough job or there just wasn't the evidence there to present. Either way, not your fault.