Jury Service

[Wiltinglillies]

Inspired by (but not about) the thread on innocent people, I wondered how many who had been on Jury service felt it was a positive experience and that the justice system was correctly served by you and your jury colleagues. (Iyswim)

I've never been asked, nor have any close family.

Don't fgs reply if you're on active jury service right now!!!

To people making statements about what happened in the jury room, can I point out the following

It is an offence to intentionally disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced, or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court.

I suggest you get your posts deleted before you end up before a jury yourself

I have done it but it was quite a long time ago - more than 25 years I would think.

On the whole it was a positive experience and, like some PP, I was impressed by how much effort seemed to go in to making sure the jury understood what was going on and what their responsibilities were and the importance of "beyond reasonable doubt" etc.

We ended up delivering a guilty verdict. I am pretty confident that we got it right but one thing that was slightly depressing was the attitude of some of the other jurors. I would say that 2 or 3 of them had made their mind up right at the start after hearing the charges read out (and seeing the colour of the defendant!). About half the rest (and I include myself in this group) seemed determined to do the job properly - listen to and consider all the evidence and discuss it in the jury room. The others gave the impression that they would be swayed one way or another by the prevailing feeling of the group but didn't contribute much to the discussion.

After we delivered our verdict one of the court officials then read out the defendant's record and, OMG, he had been convicted of similar offences in the past and even done time for them.

I was pleased to be called up for jury service as I'd always fancied it. It did involve hanging around a lot in a room with hundreds of others (I live in a large city) waiting to be called so can be boring. So many potential jurors were moaning about it - the majority seemed not to want to do it and were moaning about expenses, losing pay etc.

I was on 2 juries - one resulted in a mis-trial in a sex case against a minor. Initially I had to explain to one young woman juror, who told me the defendant was obviously guilty from the way he looked, that we must only consider the evidence. The result was that 3 of us considered the defendant to be guilty and the others found him not guilty (although they expressed he was but he'd been led on by the child). Justice was not done.

In the following case of a burglary there was a majority verdict of guilt.

I was left disappointed by the experience in the first case, although I found the process interesting. Considering how jurors didn't want to serve and having conversations with lots of them, I think there may be a case for professional jurors so that people don't just want to get the trial over with and get home (which is what many of them wanted).

I did it a few years ago.
It was sexual abuse against children, so the evidence was absolutely harrowing to sit through for the best part of the week and, in retrospect, I am kind of surprised that we weren't offered some sort of debrief or something afterwards. I still think about the children involved. However, it was a positive experience in that I feel justice was done and it was interesting to be a part of that. I wouldn't want to do it again, partly because jury service as a mum of young children and someone with a job was a logistical nightmare, and partly because I wouldn't want to sit through something like that again.

Loved it. Paid by both them and work; hours free to sit and read; two interesting cases.

My dad did one involving child sex abuse. He said it was horrendous.

@MarieG10 that is only if the case and / or jurors can be identified. Everything posted here is anonymous.

I've done it once and it was a harrowing experience. The group I was with were not appropriate for such a task at all, some had difficulty following the case and understanding the words and terminology used, some couldn't let go of their own opinions based on personal experience- nothing to do with the case, and some did not give a fuck about the case and just wanted to go home early so were trying to convince others to reach the easiest verdict (for us) which was so incredibly wrong.
The case involved a death and as you can imagine there were a lot of professionals and distressed family members there, which made the responsibility of being a jury member, and in my case, the foreman, for this particular case all the more stressful.
I came out of the experience not trusting the juror system and hoping I would never ever be put infront of one

I did jury service ten years ago. Two different cases. One not guilty one guilty.
The guilty one was an assault. The defendant was sent home to be sentenced later. One of my fellow jurors was a driving Instructor. Her car was in the court car park with her name and number all over it. To her horror as she was leaving so was the bloke we had convicted.. She had to pretend to take a phone call and wait till he had been driven off so she could get in her car safely!

To all of you who have sat on jury’s where people have obviously struggled with the language and terminology, or expressed knee jerk type opinions without reference to the facts, what could you have done ? Are you able to report this to the court ushers, or who ever you liaise with on the case ?

Thezulse I was wondering that too. If someone clearly isn't interested in taking it seriously can they be subbed out(for want of a better expression)and shown the evidence that was already shown or would it mean redoing the entire trial?

I had a juicy rape case (quite literally with regard to the forensic evidence) dating back 25 years.

We were fortunate to have a young GP as our foreman and we came down guilty by 11 to 1, an old soul who wouldn't want to be responsible for sending anyone down.

We were disappointed not to get the hotel and potential mini-bar, and had to go home between Days 1 & 2.

I did it about 18 years ago. I found it fascinating and took my role very seriously. It was an armed robbery case.

My fellow jurors on the whole were diligent and understood the impact our decisions would have on not only the accused, but the victim too. There was one woman in the jury who was thick as mince to be honest, she just sat there nodding for ten days and just agreed with what everyone else said. No critical thinking or evaluation of the evidence.

We found him guilty. Then they read out his list of previous convictions (48!) and sentenced him to 8 years. His family went ballistic and threatened to “ ‘ave us all” outside. They had to be escorted out of court by police and threatened with arrest. We were escorted out of the back door half an hour later!

I’d love to do it again but I’m aware some cases are much more harrowing than others. I chatted to some jurors on a different case to me at the time (no details) - they were doing an accountancy fraud case and said it was tedious beyond belief.

thezulze and rugger you can't sub out a juror. All 12 have to be there at all times, if a juror needs the toilet the whole court has to have a recess. If a juror isn't well then the trial is delayed until they are better.

If someone was seriously struggling then you could report to the usher or send a note to the judge. It would mean a new jury being sworn in and basically starting again.

I have not done it and am seventy now so won't be asked. That's a great relief because I would hate it - I'd want to do the right thing of course but can imagine being in a room full of people, everybody analysing the case and giving their perspective, and me panicking.

The other thing would be having to get to the court by a certain time and having transport problems or getting lost.

It's a good thing not everyone is like me, I know.

I do admire people who can keep calm in situations like jury service.

I got called up just as I was about to start college,I deferred and then was called up a year later and was just about to start a new job so I am now exempt.

Just been called but can't do it due to illness. Feel both relieved and a bit guilty at the same time because I think it is a duty we should all do.

My DH had a drug case/ something very complicated and boring. him and another juror were both doctors and looking at the scientific facts while the other jurors were going off other elements- they were out voted and the guy got put away when according to my DH and the other juror he shouldn't of been

I would love to be on a jury

Thesuzle, there wasn't much that could be done, as the foreman I tried to ensure everybody in the group has a chance to speak and ask any questions so we used that time as an opportunity to correct any confusion over terminology etc.
With regards to the jurors who were trying to leave early, one inparticular became quite aggressive and tried to leave the vicinity so I had to call the officer in charge of the jurors for help. He then explained that if he were to leave he would be in contempt of court and could be arrested but compromised on a supervised cigarette break.

I was a juror at a Coroners Court case a few years ago.
It was absolutely fascinating, but highly charged. It was interesting to get an inside view into the whole process.
When the verdict was announced the family of the deceased were very upset & the whole room became very tense. They glared at the whole of the jury & shouted, as they felt that we had let them down. That was quite hard. But the verdict that we gave was the right one & we all agreed unanimously.
It would definitely do it again, in a blink.

I'm due to do jury service for the first time next month. I was wondering how they select the foreman/person? I don't fancy doing that job.

Ah thanks for that SapphosRock

bigbluebus you decide the foreman as a group.

I've never been called but I had a colleague who was called twice in twelve months.

I've done it once and found it generally a very interesting experience, and we spent a long time deliberating the verdict as the jury group. So much so that I got the impression the staff was getting annoyed we were taking so long! I also found it personally a really valuable experience and despite dreading it initially, would gladly do it again one day.

I think a lot of people didn't quite grasp the "beyond reasonable doubt" concept and the fact that as a juror you should feel sure based on the evidence given by the prosecution. People seemed to assume the defendant was already guilty just based on the fact they were in court. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution but certainly some jurors seemed to say the defendant should have proven (with concrete evidence) they were innocent... The defendant was found guilty but it wasn't unanimous.