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?

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and the jury is provided with all the facts and evidence. The defendant does not need to prove their innocence.

When I did jury duty, it initially seemed like a straightforward case but the longer it went on, the more unsure I was. We had really long discussions in the jury room and reached a majority verdict in the end as we couldn't all agree. It was quite shocking (but not surprising) how much people are swayed by their prejudices ("he seems like a dodgy type so he's clearly done something wrong even if he didn't do this") But as there are 12 people, it balances things out a lot. I was actually thinking not guilty and quite strongly held onto that view despite some clearly wanting for us all to agree so we could get it done.

@Sportslady44

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?

I was on a jury in a case a bit like this (except the charge was GBH). Two expert witnesses in mental health were called, one for the defence and one for the prosecution. Even the prosecution expert said in their opinion the defendant was not in their right mind while committing the crime. It was an easy and quick unanimous 'not guilty by reason of insanity' from us. Surely there are expert witnesses in play in this case?

Of course, if the prosecution expert witness had said, 'Actually, not sure he was mentally ill at the time', then it wouldn't have been so simple. But I assume the witness would have had to present their opinion/evidence as to why they thought that.

@anotherheadache

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?

Yes, you get given a copy of what the charge is to refer to while you're in the jury room. The judge may also direct you about specific elements to be sure of/bear in mind.

@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.

When I was on a jury a few years ago, there were a few people who said nothing in the several hours we were deliberating, though. Not a peep, even when directly asked for their input. It was a majority verdict and they barely even indicated their agreement at that stage - heads down, mumbling etc. Absolute twats.

@anotherheadache

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?

Explanations to the Jury are provided throughout- before the defendant comes in, during the trial if the Judge suspects more clarification is required, and during the deliberation at the Jury's request.

You don’t need to decide if they are guilty or innocent only if there is reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt regardless of who you believe it should be not guilty.

It was a majority verdict and they barely even indicated their agreement at that stage - heads down, mumbling etc. Absolute twats

Let's hope they never find themselves in the Dock.

Although from 1957 USA, the film 12 Angry Men is a compelling fictional account of the process.

@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.

You appoint a foreperson, who 'chairs' the discussions and hopefully makes sure everyone understands, participates and is heard. I agree with Lockheart it's a human system and therefore basically the worst option apart from all the other worst options. What struck me, and stays with me, is that our judge impressed upon us that we must be sure the person was guilty (the term 'reasonable doubt' wasn't used; I think this is deliberate as 'sure' is a much more relatable term for most people). He said this was not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent. I've thought about that a lot since. It may well mean that some people who should be locked up get to walk the streets; but the alternative, an innocent person being stuck in prison, is far far worse.

@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.

I was on a historical CSA case. We first heard from the victim, then from a number of other people including her first husband (who described how the trauma had damaged her in adulthood), religious leaders and others who were around the family at the time so could provide the circumstantial evidence that the defendant was often left in sole charge and so had the opportunity. On the morning that the defendant was due to tell his side, the defence barrister announced to the judge that his client had decided that he no longer wished to give evidence. The judge said that the Jury could infer what they liked from that. So we didn't deliberate for very long before agreeing to convict.

Guidance from the judge is very important. When I was on the jury in a complicated trial he did a flow chart for us. We were told “you must be sure” to give a guilty verdict. I think this is the new wording rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

We had heard about 9 days of evidence but not all of it was actually relevant. There were some key parts and we had made notes and looked at those. We asked the judge for clarification on one point. It want that difficult tbh (but I did a lot of criminal law as part of my degree so that did help).

@Sportslady44

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?

Manslaughter through diminished responsibility is quite a common plea. Be careful how much you post OP, if they haven't yet given a verdict. It may identify the case (I know of one which is ongoing at the moment).

I was a juror on a case where it was one person's word against another - even without any physical evidence, we decided the accused was guilty based on the fact that their account of events seemed implausible, they contradicted themselves on a few occasions, and on careful scrutiny of interview transcripts and police accounts there were things that wouldn't have made much sense if they hadn't done what they were accused of. The prosecution also had a witness to the immediate aftermath of the crime who had no obvious motive to lie, and in fact would have had quite a strong motive to avoid getting involved in the case at all. On balance, it just seemed overwhelmingly more likely that the defendant had done it.

The whole experience did make me think it would be easy to get away with a lot of crimes if you could manage to come across as respectable and keep your story straight. Most criminals aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed though, and police interviews are designed to catch people out if they're lying.

@Justcallmebebes

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

That's why they don't tell you until after.

Even much as some people are utter scumbags, you can't have them convicted for the crime in question just because of anything else they've done.

Yes, past convictions usually aren't disclosed until it is time to sentence. Otherwise we'd have "this man has been committing burglary since the age of 10, of course he did it this time too."

I think some jurors apply the wrong test
"beyond a shadow of a doubt"
and get fixated on any remote possibility that is most unlikely to have actually happened.

If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision or an acceptable majority verdict then they are a hung jury and are discharged - the prosecution then can decide whether or not to have a retrial.

It’s not the case you are never told - blanket ruling - about a defendants past convictions. I sat as a juror on a case and we were told his previous. He had used the characters of the prosecution witnesses as part of his defence so the judge ruled we were able to hear his.

And - as PP - you are given the law by the judge. That is where job - to direct the jury to the finite and complete law. And it’s that legal line you apply to the evidence.

Jury service is one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. A huge responsibility. After a 2 week trial, we deliberated and agonised for a week to reach our verdict. Emotionally draining but each and every person in the room was completely determined to see justice done and everyone one of us got space to be heard and to listen. It was an honour to serve with such a committed jury. Even if we didn’t all agree, there was respect for every point of view.

Of course there are fairer ways of deciding.

A panel of experts judges who have to provide a written decision that can be challenged if their basis is faulty (a jury's decision can't be challenged because they never have to provide their reasons).

An inquisitorial system that is focused on establishing facts rather than our adversarial system that is pure theatre.

There are loads of fairer and more effective ways functioning very well in other parts of the world.

@Justcallmebebes

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

My husband was a jury member years ago and had a similar experience. It was a "going equipped to break in" trial, so nothing violent. My husband has a strong sense of fairness and did agonise more than others on the jury about making the right decision, but did agree that the man was guilty. He said that it was a huge relief when they read out a list of his previous convictions.

I was on a jury years ago. It was fascinating. One case we said not guilty - I actually can't remember the details, but there was definitely reasonable doubt about it, even though I think we also though the person concerned was not completely innocent.

The second got thrown out because the judge said it was clearly a 'he said, he said' case and no strong evidence either way.

The third we agreed guilty and found out that the person had a long string of other convictions. The case was for drug dealing - he was so young really it was very sad. His defence was that the reason police had found him with lots and lots of drugs individually wrapped up was so he knew how much he was taking. The scales and cash we just coincidental. Based on the evidence we heard, we were sure he was dealing drugs.

@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.

DP was a juror on a case like this. It was awful as there was no way of knowing and no evidence (50 year old case too)

@deeplyrooted

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,

This was DHs experience.

He and one other were unsure but the rest just wanted to get home and the pressure was awful.

Always remember you are found innocent or guilty on the basis of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury service.

(Apologies can't remember who said it)

Oh I am absolutely with you on this one! I was once at a trial where in my mind the answer was either a) offence x and y if you believed the prosecution [essentially they’d had article x with them and therefor they had also committed offence Y] or b) offence Z if you believed the defence [they had not had article x with them and therefor committed offence Z] . The jury went for just guilty on offence Y. Still no idea why but I think there was probably a bit of horse trading in the Jury room

I served on a jury for a historical rape case and I'm sorry to say, it was ridiculous, how the CPS thought it would get a conviction, I don't know. No physical evidence, all based on 1 single statement from the woman who had a mental health issues, a troubled childhood and who was taken in by her friends family. She said the older brother of the friend raped her on multiple occasions even whilst his own mother was in the room!! Such a bizarre case and a massive waste of money in my opinion. We had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty, we just couldn't!!