Roll up! Rebecca Brooks and Andy Coulson in the tumbrils

[limitedperiodonly]

It's going to last six months.

At least Andy turned up with a poppy on. Nice touch. Bit early though.

I can't imagine sitting on a jury for six months and having to not read anything about the case in all that time. It is so high profile, I think the jurors are being asked the (almost) impossible. I wonder if they get any coaching on how to achieve this.

I so desperately don't want this trial to collapse. They've spent no time on remand so if convicted a custodial would be almost inevitable

bumpotato I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

I've no real idea, but I suppose if you stuck to court reports that would be okay because you'd already heard it. So why would you read it anyway, unless perhaps you weren't paying attention and needed a recap?

Possible. I'm not going to condemn anyone for nodding off during IMPORTANT PROCEEDINGS because I've done it

If you were engaging in wilder chats and sharing secrets from the jury room that wouldn't be.

If someone was on the jury and a mnetter would it be a problem if they read this thread (as an example)?

There's nothing on this thread they wouldn't have already heard because we're behind them and anything that goes on when the jury is sent out is not reported.

If they contributed their thoughts that would obviously be a serious criminal offence. You'd have to be seriously dense not to realise that. Some people are. Most people aren't.

I think where social media got people into trouble on other trials was where the likes of Facebook was used etc. I think I recall a jury member managed to find either the accused or a witness and contacted them directly. But this thread is just recapping/following the evidence already presented so should be ok . Would be a bit if someone from the jury posted!

So if I was to say, for example, not actually saying it "look at Rebekah Brooks. She's an evil and nasty piece of work, obviously as guilty as sin. Even looking at her makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. I hope she goes down for years, the cah"' . That's ok for a juror to read but not comment on or keep in their heads when making decisions.

I'm sure it would get you deleted on this site bum.

If a juror saw it inadvertently she or he surely wouldn't be blamed, just that they wouldn't be blamed for hearing the same things from someone in a bus queue.

But don't go looking and definitely don't go sharing.

It's not that hard to work out.

I'm sure the jury will have had quite a detailed talk about the Internet and what they are/aren't allowed to look for/comment on etc etc.

I agree limited. It's six months at least of watching your ps and qs, not only online, but in day to day life too. Though it is easy to understand, it is a lot to ask of anyone.

Personally I'm rubbish at keeping my mouth shut. Though I wouldn't seek out defendants or post things online, I'd definitely be offering opinions to DH, especially after a couple of wines. I'd be a rubbish juror.

I'm rubbish at keeping my mouth shut too bum. Especially when I've had a drink.

I think the courts allow for that except in the most egregious cases.

Egregious is one of my favourite words btw.

I work under strict confidentiality laws (abroad) and have often been in positions of professional confidentiality (au paired years ago in a v well known political family (again abroad) and had to sign confidentiality agreements). So am used to not talking too much. But you still would chat about it with someone you trust. It's human nature. I assume JKR's lawyer trusted his wife for example, albeit mistakenly. But can you imagine coming home from a day listening to this case and not saying anything? Unrealistic. But you'd chat over with dh but you wouldn't tweet or go on facebook. Right? And I guess this is drummed into the jury right from the off.

There was a completely unrelated thread on mn last night which was potentially libellous about someone else in the public eye. It was deleted in the end, but stayed up for a good 12 hours. No real harm done, but if it had been a juror talking about this case it would have been enough to throw doubt on proceedings, and get mnhq in a whole lot of trouble.

I think some court cases are held so that jury members have no outside contact at all, at least in the US. Maybe in the uk?

I think in cases that aren't expected to drag on six months then I could see the logic in containing the jury, especially where there is a risk of an expensive trial/investigation going tits up. But I cannot imagine that would be possible for six months. There are very few people who could give up their life for 6 months to fulfil their civic duty. I'd have loved to be on that jury. I'd like to think I have an open mind, no matter what my view is/was of the whole hacking 'scandal'. My job means I need to get all sides before I can come to a conclusion on what to do so I think I'd be perfect jury fodder . Plus I don't do Facebook/twitter.

I'm sure the OJ Simpson jurors were held and that was a long trial.

Just checked that - the jury were sworn in Nov 94, verdict was Oct '95. Almost a year of being kept locked away from your life/the world at large. That would be torture. As much as I'd love to be on the jury of this trial, being locked away for the time involved would be bloody hard.

What does "locked in" entail? Would they be allowed home at weekends/Xmas or not at all? I think I remember seeing an item on the news about their newspapers being censored before being delivered to them and certain channels on their TVs at the hotel being scrambled....but maybe I dreamt that.

All that sounds pretty ineffectual nowadays, with instant access to 24/7 news/internet via phones/tablets etc. Which is I guess part of the problem with large, lengthy, high profile court cases.

I guess they could always take phones off the jurors if it was deemed necessary.

I also remember reading that the OJ jurors had relevant articles cut out of newspapers before they were allowed to have them.

They finish at about 4pm each day. Courts are very nice to jurors because it's tiring and barring the odd idiot, people take it really seriously.

I'd love to be on the jury of this one. Who does your work if you are away for that long though? Have people on long cases ever lost their jobs?

It's a big issue. You tend to get OAPs, women who do not work who are at home without young children, unemployed on juries although a huge effort is made to ensure people who work do serve too. The risk is that you end up with only a certain sort of person serving. However it is a big commitment to give up so much time to a case.

They need to be very careful what they say and what they look at or they could go to jail. That was been explained to them very carefully on the first day. In fact the judge said they might already have seen the Private Eye cover (RB as a witch) and that that was the sort of thing they must not read and should ignore.

(Thanks re their child being the genetic child of both. I've always wondered).

\link{https://twitter.com/peterjukes\Peter Jukes tweeting like mad} - the computer found behind (not in) the bin has just come up

Thanks re their child being the genetic child of both. I've always wondered - ooh, that passed me by, who said that?

ah - the live tweeting is just during the "opening statement" (helluva statement!) - once witnesses start talking we'll have to wait for edited round-ups

shame

we have heard why the PA was charged - she was removing evidence, lying about who the evidence belonged to, & giving RB a false alibi (allegedly)

& there is masses of stuff about them instituting an email deletion policy (with a later & later cut-off date, as incriminating inf emerged) but luckily despite many deletions back-up copies had been kept by contractors

the max penalty for conspiring to pervert the course of justice is life

just saying