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?

@Youdoyoutoday

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!!

Unfortunately some juries would have convicted as a young woman wouldn't have made it up, no evidence required. Just a lottery who you get on the jury.

@DazedandConfused3

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

Not in the jury room, surely; it's only the twelve jurors who are ever in there/party to the conversations in there. Do you mean horse trading between the prosecution and defence counsels?

@MrsRobinsonsHandprints

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)

Thankfully, I can't say that was the case in mine. It is a lottery though; but I guess that's why you have a) careful direction from the judge and b) twelve people ie a large enough pool that there should be a range.

I sat on the jury for an ABH case when I did jury service and for that case there was some very damning evidence, including blood spatter and forensics which made it simple for us to come to a guilty verdict. We weren't just presented with people saying that this happened and that happened. We had pictures of the scene, officers who were there giving evidence, social worker reports of historic abuse, pictures of the alleged weapon, video evidence from a child who witnessed the attack etc. If those things weren't presented it would have been much harder, of course! I was lucky that the jury I sat on were all very balanced people and there was no peer pressure or anything. That said, the case was quite clear, maybe would have been different if it were less so? I'm not sure.

Champion, yes, that sounds clear and yes, I think many are very different. One I did was sexual assault: a woman on her own in her flat and a man who came to give her a massage. No one else there. No physical evidence.
It was awful. We couldn't agree, even as a majority, so it got thrown out.

Interesting that judges seem to be encouraging "You must be sure". I always wondered what defined "reasonable doubt".

The judge is supposed to give them guidance about the very specific points they are supposed to decide. So they can narrow their decisions. And what exactly the charge is & the legal burden of proof for being convicted of that crime.

I listen to a lot of legal podcasts.

Lawyers will tell you that juries are fickle, however...

sometimes American jurors get interviewed afterwards & will break down how they decided. the recent podcast about the Silicon valley con artists, Elizabeth Holmes, has quite a bit of detail how the jury decided. They graded witnesses by credibility for instance.

I have a close relative who is a judge, so has served on a panel of judges which tends to be invoked rather than jury, preferentially by defendents often, only when the basic evidence isn't in dispute, but whether the story meets the threshold for certain levels of the crime (ie, manslaughter vs. 1st degree homicide, and the corresponding severity of penalties that follow from different crimes).

The judge direct you, & will sometimes accept a 10-2 or 11-1 verdict.

@IntermittentParps

Champion, yes, that sounds clear and yes, I think many are very different. One I did was sexual assault: a woman on her own in her flat and a man who came to give her a massage. No one else there. No physical evidence. It was awful. We couldn't agree, even as a majority, so it got thrown out.

Plus you should never, ever discuss it outside the courtroom!

You can discuss the case once a verdict has been delivered - you are allowed to discuss the facts as discussed in what will have been an open court and that are now in the public domain.

You cannot ever discuss who was on the jury with you and what was discussed (how you came to your verdict and who said what).

I did jury service and got 2 trials. At the end of the first one the judge said 'if you have any. doubt. then you must return a verdict of not guilty.' The second time she just reeled it off, and when we said guilty it was revealed he had previous.

TheHaka, you can't disclose your discussions in the jury room, no. All I said was the charge, the circumstances, the (absence of) evidence and the outcome, all accessible both at the time and now by any member of the public.

This has been such an interesting thread - my jury duty starts in a few weeks and I'm really really nervous!

I sometimes think it must largely hinge on the jury members' personal prejudices / biases i.e. 'she looks so sweet no way she would be lying'.

@Youdoyoutoday

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!!

Unfortunately the CPS seems to jump between phases of

1. "Always believe the victim no matter how many contradictions there are in the statement and clear evidence that the suspect was on a six month Antarctic expedition at the time"

and

1. (After a bunch of cases collapse) "every case must be 100% watertight complete with DNA, CCTV, and a signed confession before it gets near a trial" (followed by an outcry at low prosecution rates and back to step 1).

Neither extreme helps victims.

@StrictlyAFemaleFemale

I did jury service and got 2 trials. At the end of the first one the judge said 'if you have any. doubt. then you must return a verdict of not guilty.' The second time she just reeled it off, and when we said guilty it was revealed he had previous.

Obviously though that doubt must be reasonable. It has to be based upon the evidence presented (or lack of evidence), and not on the wild speculation of a juror

@FusionChefGeoff

This has been such an interesting thread - my jury duty starts in a few weeks and I'm really really nervous!

Me too! Be glad when it’s over, nervous of such a huge responsibility.

I did jury service last year - a historic child abuse case.
Most evidence was limited to videos of police interviews due to illness and one key witness having since passed away.

We reached a majority verdict - it was our spokesperson who didn’t agree with the rest of us in the end. We told our usher that 11 agreed and 1 was not going to change their kind. He informed the judge and we had this odd situation where we had to go into court, say we didn’t all agree, got sent out and then immediately returned and the judge was happy to accept a majority verdict.

Our judge said that we were an exemplary jury . He added that we probably thought that he said that to all of his jurys but he didn’t and sometimes you could just tell when people weren’t going to take their roles seriously!

It felt a privileged to play a part in the trail to be honest and I felt we did a good job.

I'm in my second week of jury service 1 case last week and second this week . I'm hoping it will be done by Friday.

Interesting thread. As a former criminal lawyer I've always wondered how the juries I've appeared in front of have thought.

@FusionChefGeoff

This has been such an interesting thread - my jury duty starts in a few weeks and I'm really really nervous!

If it helps, being summonsed does not necessarily mean being sworn in to a jury.

On the Monday I was called (everyone is called on a Monday I think), some people were instantly dismissed (for no reason other than Numbers).

The jury service I did someone wanted to do a not guilty because the defendant was late teens and it would ruin their life 🤦‍♀️ luckily they were persuaded by a few or us that tough as the life changing injuries or the victim meant they had ruined their own life.

Our judge said that we were an exemplary jury . He added that we probably thought that he said that to all of his jurys but he didn’t and sometimes you could just tell when people weren’t going to take their roles seriously!

Well done you
Reminded me that the judge in my case where we couldn't come to an agreement was very kind about it. I felt terrible, but he said something like 'You mustn't feel that this means you didn't do your duty well; it actually shows that you have all thought very carefully about it and taken it very seriously.'
It did reassure me a bit, although I still felt/feel that justice was possibly not done that day.

@VladmirsPoutine

I sometimes think it must largely hinge on the jury members' personal prejudices / biases i.e. 'she looks so sweet no way she would be lying'.

You must have been on our jury, that's the sort of reasoning they had along with 'he looks the type'.

If I was guilty of a crime I’d want a jury trial (chances are 50/50). If I was innocent I would prefer a judge only!

It’s a terrible system and should be abolished (I say this as someone who worked in the criminal law system for over 20 years - and yes I have also been selected for jury service - more shocking than I expected and completely unfair on the public).