Jury Service

[EstoyRobandoSuCasa]

Following recent threads about particular trials, I have a few questions about people's experiences of Jury Service, but don't want to derail those threads.

What did the deliberating room look like? I've always pictured a fancy wood-panelled room with a royal crest on the wall, but I suspect I'm wrong!

Are you each given a juror number and asked to sit in numerical order on the benches, or can you sit where you like? Do you whisper to each other occasionally or are you completely silent?

Were any of your fellow jurors dismissed or discharged (not sure which term is correct)? If so, what happened? Did the judge explain their absence?

I don't know if you're allowed to talk about what happened in the deliberation room in general terms or if you mustn't say anything at all. But if you can say anything, I'd be interested to know if your fellow jurors seemed motivated and capable, or if there were any who didn't appear to understand the case, or who only cared about getting home ASAP?

I did jury service 40 years ago but I don't think things have changed much. I don't remember having a number, but I know we had to sit in the same seat each day. The deliberation room was an oak pannelled room as you describe OP. Once in there we could talk at perfect liberty about the case or anything. Three people were dismissed (I think they called it "challenged") from the jury before the trial began. There was no explanation or anything, they just left the jury stand never to be seen again. The case in question fortunately didn't involve DV or children and was in places quite humourous. I remember we did laugh occasionally and whisper a little bit to each other but weren't told off.

No te preocupes, en realidad no soy ladrona! Simplemente cuido de una casa vacia en Mexico. 😎

I was on a jury last year and one juror was dismissed - they asked a question (passed a note as is allowed) raising an issue as they believed a fact to be incorrect. When the judge spoke to them (in private) they admitted that they had verified their knowledge through an internet search. We never saw that juror again. You are told not to look up anything - the fact was nothing to do with anyone in the case, it was around a release date for a piece of tech.

The trial continued with 11 jurors (defendant found guilty and sentenced to 17 yrs).

Did the judge tell you why he'd been dismissed, @1980isitjustme, or did you find out some other way?

I read once that jurors weren't even allowed to google the definition of legal terms, which surprised me, but I suppose that's in case they end up relying on inaccurate information.

Nope, I’m 14 months into diagnosis pathway, it’s slow, they’re disinterested , basically put a letter saying “ms moth is curious to know cause…” to my gp as summary of second appointment. I took him to task next appointment with why the hell would he say such a thing, my quality of life is massively impacted and I’d had it for 12 years, with no diagnosis or treatment
I shall persist 🤷🏼‍♀️🥴🙄

you are almost certainly right, but on first pass we didn’t get that far! The clerk just asked if anyone had concerned and more and more people started jumping on bandwagon of “can’t” form those in their second week, and then those in first week…she took notes and list and went into court. There as long wait and she reappeared and said we were all dismissed and go back up to lounge. I assume judge must have just got pissed off and sent us all away back to lounge to reselect . Those of us who had said we were ok with over run were automatically reselected and they obviously randomed Selected the rest as new ones
when we went back down the clerk was a lot less flexible to peoples excuses, she told people she t would overrun rather than asked😮, I don’t recall how many then raised objections, as I was fine I don’t recall if those few had to go in front of judge to state their case, could well of done , I was in deliberation room by then waiting to be called into court for final selection. Certainly we all went in for final selection so if they did present their reasons to judge he didn’t let them off 🙄😮

Yep, you are not supposed to look anything up at all remotely to do with anything said in trial.

you get enough warnings about this

But this Poster should not be divulging this information, not if it came out in jury room…which it must have done as we saw a juror escorted through lounge from a court by a court clerk and security and was not allowed to talk to anyone , just collect their stuff form locker. They’d have not been allowed to talk to that juror after deed was done . Talk about walk of shame . It was clear they’d been doing something they shouldn’t…a bit shocking

Gosh that’s so slow. Fingers crossed you get an answer soon.

I wouldn't want anyone to talk about anything they're not allowed to. I was wondering if the judge might have addressed the jury in court e.g., "juror number 8 will not be returning as they have admitted to researching the case online. This is a very serious matter and they may be charged with contempt of court. You will continue as a jury of 11".

Also, sorry to hear about your medical condition. I've had IBS since my 20s and luckily it gradually improved, although I still get occasional flare-ups. I don't think anyone should have to serve on a jury whilst having those symptoms. The thought of having to ask permission to go to the toilet makes me feel nervous at the best of times.

It didn’t come out of the jury room, it came out of the open court which was addressed after the juror was dismissed with the reasons why fully stated and recorded and yet another reminder not to look up anything. My point was that this extended to facts that were not about the individuals or places.

Old Bailey so our deliberation room was probably what you'd imagine, wood panneled, fusty smelling 😂 Utterly mortified by the one loo and proximity of it to the room...I mean I can be rather windy 😳 I didn't have a traumatic case, I would love the chance to go back but know I won't get the Bailey again sadly, a modern court just wouldn't feel the same.

And yes, you don’t google any legal facts. The judge provides full written directions from the summing up that you take into the juror room with you to assist in your deliberations. These directions are given in respect of each charge as there were 20 separate charges on the case I was on and you had to give a verdict in respect of each charge.

@Limehawkmoth im well aware of what I can and can’t say and would not and have not divulged anything that was not stated in open court with people sitting in the public gallery.

Member of the jury in the trial I served on was out his face on drugs, fell asleep in court multiple times and in the end got kicked off the jury. He didn’t have a clue what was going on, when we were chatting in the jury room it was like the lights were on and no one home. Everyone else was really competent, listened to one another and reached the same conclusion after some good debates and considerations. I really enjoyed it and found very interesting

My JS was in the pre smartphone days when you had to go home and boot up the PC to look anything up, so more effort and less temptation than there must be now. It was made VERY clear that we must avoid looking up anything to do with the case. We had to ask the clerk of the court for clarification on legal terms when we were in the deliberation room, and once while we were still at the evidence giving stage and at lunch, someone said, there is something that I’d really like to discuss about the evidence and a few of us nodded so we told the clerk who got us all together and put us in a room to agree our question which it turned out we had all been puzzling about separately, it was then put to the judge. Who said “not telling you”.

Also, just to point out you don’t even go to “the juror room” for deliberations until the trial evidence has concluded. You just go to the main lounge etc to wait in between. So if someone was dismissed during the trial it couldn’t have happened in the juror room.

once in deliberations, you aren’t allowed to leave the room until you either reach a verdict or dismissed for the day. We had some smokers in our group - they had to be escorted outside by a court usher who stayed with them and another usher had to sit in the room to make sure nothing was discussed whilst they weren’t there.

This is all really interesting. Ive had a jury summons about 10 times but never actually sat on a jury. I have another summons to the high court in Glasgow soon so although id liked to be picked to get it done id rather not as my daughter will miss nursery for however long its on for.

Not true in our court. We had (too many) stops in proceedings when we were taken to jury deliberation room. Only went back to lounge if they knew it would be more than 1 hour so we could buy the really expensive tea and coffee . We literally were in there multiple times every single day over our nearly 4 week trial .we were actually in there once for 3 hours waiting. Can’t say why, but we weren’t happy and had to beg clerk to unlock the tea and coffee cupboard so we could actually have a hot drink. And yes, we used that time to discuss proceedings and clarify things between us. But also we just chatted and played a lot of animal, vegetable and mineral (had to teach it to youngsters)🤦🏼‍♀️🤣🤣

I’m guessing it depends on where lounge is in relation to the court room. Ours was a good 6-7 minutes walk including lifts, so I guess judge wasn’t happy with a delay of 15 -20 minutes to get jury back when they’d sorted out whatever it was that stopped proceedings.

There were seats and a toilet outside our court room and we got sent there multiple times while they were clarifying points.

On one occasion we’d been in there twenty minutes or so, sat down in court and were sent back out again within a minute after the witness said something they shouldn’t have.

The jurors from the adjoining court had been in there the whole 20 minutes the first time and all burst out laughing when we trooped back in.

what could a witness say that they should not have?

I was so tempted to say in my case about my exes track record and the restraining orders from previous relationships but I did not as I knew it woulld most likely paint me in a bad light

what could a witness say that they should not have?

This is what happened in the case where I was a juror. It was a domestic violence case, the defence witness was asking the witness/victim about why she hadn't told anyone, even a close friend if she couldn't go to the police. She said she was scared to, and that only changed when he went to jail for drug dealing.

The judge immediately jumped in and told us to disregard that comment but that's easier said than done.

In my case it was just after the Sarah Everard, and Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman cases, the trial was not similar at all (OCG) and had a LOT of police intelligence. One defence barrister started saying “we only have to look at very recent cases to see the level of police corruption” - the judge ordered everyone out, an hour later when we went back in the barrister grovellingly apologised for his comment.

I recently was excused from service at the Old Bailey for this very reason!
I did jury service years ago, before I developed IBS, so I really didn't want to have to do an Old Bailey case.
I am medically diagnosed and said they could check if they needed to but fortunately they took me at my word and excused me as it would obviously have wasted everyone's time!

When I did do jury service I was shocked by the attitude of some of the other jury members, a couple basically said they just wanted out so would vote with the majority, another had some very old fashioned views. In the end we could only manage a majority verdict & the judge accepted that.

That defence barrister must have been kicking themselves! 😆

what could a witness say that they should not have?

Anything that should not be disclosed or has been ruled as not to be disclosed to the jury because it's prejudicial.

Like a previous conviction - the fact someone has committed one burglary in the past doesn't mean that they did this one, but human nature is to be influenced by it so the jury aren't told.

If a witness says 'well I knew straight away this Defendant robbed me because he was convicted of doing Mrs Jones down the road' that would be a retrial because they've given the jury information they should not have.