To not understand how a jury reaches its verdict

[Sportslady44]

I am following a court case at the moment and have been in the public gallery for a few days.

Listening to the evidence and prosecution and defence statements and summing up etc.

I wonder how the hell does a jury know who to believe. Both prosecution and defence make you believe they are right? So much to listen too etc and consider?

The only person who knows is the person on trial right?
How do the jury know?

I guess there is no fairer way of deciding but i realised that i wouldnt really want to make that call when you dont know?

That's why there are 12 of them, and why it takes them somewhere between hours and weeks to reach a verdict. They discuss everything they've heard and how to weight it.

You're supposed to decide on the evidence. If there isn't enough actual evidence to convict, then you can't. In theory anyway. But that's the yardstick.

The judge also points them to facts of law. Actual law not theories. It’s about literally the letter of the law that can be proven, not who you believe.

I think a lot of it goes on personal bias.
From experience... the police charged him so he must be guilty; he looks the sort; she's such a nice looking girl she wouldn't have done that.
If there's no real proof it's just a matter of who you believe, your own bias comes into play.

Based on the evidence presented, do you think beyond reasonable doubt the defendant did what they're being prosecuted for. If not, you find them not guilty. And 12 of you, or less if allowed to have a majority opinion, have to reach that threshold.

I'm always amazed anyone gets found guilty at trial tbh!

It's not about "belief", or at least it shouldn't be. They weigh up the evidence and decide whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt based.

Not sure what that errant 'based' is doing there!

It's really difficult. If you are on a jury with a disparate group of people and the evidence isn't a slam-dunk, the interesting thing is how entrenched some people get on reasonable doubt. I was on a jury where we were directed by the judge that we were entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but the defence barrister really hammered the idea that we couldn't draw inferences, we had to have direct proof - the judge called the barrister out and said that he was wrong; reasonable inferences based on an accumulation of evidence are allowed, but at that point a couple of jurors had decided it wasn't fully proven and really dug in.

The amount of evidence you have to sift through in a complex case is huge and some jurors don't want to or struggle to read it all through again after the cases have been presented.

We reached a majority decision in the end as couldn't reach unanimous verdict and it was actually really quite an upsetting process. The thing that was great, though, is how seriously everyone on the jury took it. We took a week to reach a verdict and it was serious hard work every day. No one messed around or was flippant or casual.

I found it a privilege to be a juror for exactly the reasons ElizabethinherGermanGarden states.
Despite being 12 strangers from very different backgrounds, we managed to co-operate and give everyone's opinion fair consideration. We reached a 11 to 1 majority in a pretty complex case.

Where the accussed says they were sexually abused as a child by this person when they were younger but they didnt mention it until after they were arrested how do you know whether they are telling the truth?

There is absolutely no way anyone apart from the two people involved know for sure whether abuse took place if there are no witnessess..

Very hard for a jury to call on that one they werent there.

I've served on a jury twice. The first trial it was a no brainer - not guilty and everyone agreed so it was easy and we were done in a couple of hours. That was a rape trial

The second one 90% of us thought guilty but a couple of people picked at certain elements of the evidence. It took 2 days before we all finally agreed on a guilty verdict. One person very reluctantly agreed with the majority. Turned out after giving our verdict that he had a long and violent past history anyway and by all accounts was a dangerous individual. That was a violent assault and robbery

@Lockheart

It's not about "belief", or at least it shouldn't be. They weigh up the evidence and decide whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt based.

Our jury had a strong chairwoman who managed to convince most of the jury that the reasonable doubt was only for murder other than that you just had to think that one was more believable than the other. We had next to no guidance from anyone on what we should do.

@Sportslady44

Where the accussed says they were sexually abused as a child by this person when they were younger but they didnt mention it until after they were arrested how do you know whether they are telling the truth?

There is absolutely no way anyone apart from the two people involved know for sure whether abuse took place if there are no witnessess..

Very hard for a jury to call on that one they werent there.

It is, and this is one reason why the conviction rates for rape and sexual abuse cases are low. In many cases the evidence is not strong enough to prove a crime was committed beyond reasonable doubt. This does not mean that it did not happen and that the accused is innocent, but it does mean that the test has not been met to convict / sentence.

The jury have to decide on this one as to whether it was murder or manslaughter and whether the person meant it and planned it or was mentally ill at the time.

Only one person who knows this?

It is, and this is one reason why the conviction rates for rape and sexual abuse cases are low. In many cases the evidence is not strong enough to prove a crime was committed beyond reasonable doubt. This does not mean that it did not happen and that the accused is innocent, but it does mean that the test has not been met to convict / sentence.

This is what happened in the rape trial I was a juror on. The Judge criticised the police for bringing a case with such poor evidence and so badly put together. There was no real concrete evidence, they couldn't even give us a definite date the alleged attack took place on. He may have been guilty but there is no way we could have convicted him on what was put before us. It was very much "he said/did / She said/did" but no proof or evidence whatsoever

If the jury discusses the evidence, then doesn’t agree, what happens next? I know the judge will sometimes accept a majority verdict, but I’m interested in what happens before then. Does the jury just keep on discussing the points of disagreement until one side gives in? It must be very intense.

I've done Jury Duty. The Judge was exceptionally clear that if there was the slightest bit of doubt, we had to reach a Not Guilty verdict.

The Prosecutions says "we did it, here's why we are saying that"
The Defence say "ah but this could have happened, this did or didn't happen, this alternative scenario could be true"

If the Defences argument is enough to cast a doubt over what the Prosecution (and evidence) tells you happened, then you have to choose Not Guilty.

I heard a radio discussion on this once and peer pressure to fall in with the majority and get home quickly seemed to be a key factor in many cases. Quite a few jurors said that the experience made them very wary of ever having to depend on the system,

The jury have to decide on this one as to whether it was murder or manslaughter and whether the person meant it and planned it or was mentally ill at the time

In this case, as a Juror, I would need evidence of a mental illness in order to use that "fact".

I would then hope to have been given evidence of premeditation, intent, any threats etc made.

Then I'd want to discuss reasonable outcome - I.e did what they do actually have the potential for death? Is it common sense that if they did X then death would occur?

@Cattenberg

If the jury discusses the evidence, then doesn’t agree, what happens next? I know the judge will sometimes accept a majority verdict, but I’m interested in what happens before then. Does the jury just keep on discussing the points of disagreement until one side gives in? It must be very intense.

Basically yes or they tell the judge that they can't reach a verdict and that's unlikely to change. As @deeplyrooted says peer pressure plays a big part.

It's a shame that jury groups can be swayed by more vocal members rather than being able to have an open discussion on it all. It's such a massive responsibility.

But in a criminal case in the UK, the starting point isn't in the middle. Does the prosecution demonstrate that the evidence shows an offence occurred beyond reasonable doubt and all the other requirements and tests. If it doesn't (and unfortunately the case I observed didn't, the prosecution case was an assertion of a story with no sound evidence. The defendants were found guilty after the judge directed the jury) then the defendants should be found innocent (or not proven in Scotland?). If a civil case with a jury then balance of probability.

Good point. The Jury should always walk in on day one with the mindset "this person is innocent".

Hopefully the information shared from both sides will then give jurors an end point they are comfortable with.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

It's a shame that jury groups can be swayed by more vocal members rather than being able to have an open discussion on it all. It's such a massive responsibility.

It is, but it's a human system and humans are flawed.

Unless we develop some sort of psychic ability or foolproof lie detector test, a jury of a decent number of people is the best way we have and that will mean that some people go free that shouldn't (and vice versa, although that will be much rarer).

I've never been on a jury, before they sit, are they provided the points to prove? As in if it's an aggravate burglary for example, is it explained to them what the points to prove are in law to make it 'aggravated' rather than just burglary?