.... to ask about jury service

[stevie69]

I've been called and I just wonder if any of you lovely people had any experience that you could share? Not about your specific cases, of course: about the process, what I can expect, how it feels to be in a position of such responsibility — that kind of stuff.

Big thanks in advance.

It was dull, dull, dull. Spent the first day sitting around waiting to be called in only to eventually be sent home without actually getting to court, the second day was spent sitting around before finally being called into court for a couple of hours, and then the third day was spend sitting around waiting before being dismissed because the defendant had changed their plea!

Did anyone have a fellow juror in a wheelchair in jury with them?

How did they cope with getting in and out and around the court rooms?

I am in wheel chair but would love to be a juror but not been called yet

Any other disabilities in fellow jurors?

There are a few courts

The one we were attending didn't have wheelchair access and was up 2 flights of stairs and no lift.

There may be limited access in some buildings. I doubt it's unheard of

The defendant in the case I was on was a wheelchair user and we were in an accessible court room.
But this was a modern crown court building.

The case I was on was quite upsetting. I thought I could cope with it but it left me more upset than I thought. I was surprised that were weren’t offered any counselling afterwards.

I was called for jury duty once and I asked to be excused (at my schools request) because I'm a teacher and it was to be the last two weeks before exam coursework was due to be sent to the exam board. The courts rejected my reason.
That said, the system here (Scotland) was you got a phone call the night before to tell you whether you had to go in the next day, and I never actually had to go in to the court.
I'm kinda gutted as I think it would have been interesting but of all the teachers I've known who have been called up, none of them have actually been selected for a case - some because they previously taught the defendant!

My mother did jury duty once and said pretty much what's said above - a lot of sitting around waiting, a lot of going in and out of the court room while discussions are being had. They had no access to phones other than one day when they were asked to stay late and were allowed to contact family to make arrangements. She took a book with her and read it all.
It was a fraud type case and she said it was very interesting and sheriff was very good at explaining some of the more technical things so they could all understand it.

If there is any element of doubt whatsoever, you have to find not guilty.

Sorry to be pernickety but this just isn't true. you have to find not guilty if there's any element of reasonable doubt. That is very different from just any old doubt.

So for example if it's a rape case and the evidence is very strongly and consistently stacked up against the defendant but you have doubt because he comes across as a nice guy and his Mum gave a good character reference, that is not reasonable doubt because you're going off nothing more than a bit of charm and a precious mother.

However if he comes across terribly, as a nasty guy, but there is not nearly enough DNA evidence and he has a strong alibi, that is reasonable doubt as it's based on fact and science

^^ Yes to this. Please listen to the judges directions carefully on legal principles like this and send a note asking them to clarify if you or another juror doesn't understand.

For example, you know the sun will rise tomorrow, but it's not 100% because nothing in life is. It's 99.999999% likely to happen, but you wouldn't say you don't know if the sun will rise. You'd be confident it will. That's reasonable doubt (which is called something else now, but judge will explain).

It's the same thing. If you're 99% sure the defendant did it, but there's still a fanciful 1% chance that maybe Big Bird did and there's no evidence to support that, you find them guilty.

Seen so many juries say they didn't understand it all and it affected their decision in a way none were happy with.

someone (not me) on the jury came up with the fab idea of doing an an anonymous paper vote as to guilty or not

I don't know if this is usual, but on mine the jury foreman suggested this as soon as we withdrew - just to test the waters, so to speak - and then we all had a wider discussion, picking out the evidence as we went

Also agree about the reasonable doubt thing, especially after our "police are all corrupt" juror insisted that his view, just in itself, constituted the doubt needed to acquit

Cannot remember the exact words, but we were told that it is not up to the defendant to prove their innocence but it was up to the state/ prosecutor to prove their guilt. Also to consider only the evidence and not what we thought of them as a person/personality etc.

I’ve always wanted to do it. Then my sister was called for it. She was 20. Immediately put on a 4 week long and multiple child abuse case (he was a carer) it was harrowing, and she says it’s still messed her head now a year later she has nightmares.
It’s not all roses.
He was found guilty.
I think I’m not so keen now...