The Jury: Murder trial

[Newtonianmechanics]

Is anyone watching this on channel 4?

www.radiotimes.com/tv/entertainment/the-jury-murder-trial-channel-4-experiment-explained/

I think it just goes to show that some strong characters are not going to change their mind or even listen to other possibilities. The fist pumping by some of the men was gross - they just wanted to win.

I think they should introduce trained foremen/women who can explain the legalities and keep the deliberations on track. Might even stop some of the stronger characters from pressuring the undecided jurors.

I did jury service many years ago on a fairly minor crime (probably about the lowest level that would be decided by jury) and the process we went through wasn't particularly close to what we saw on The Jury. It was much more of a conversation than a confrontation, that said we didn't have anyone that was strongly for acquittal, some who were undecided and some who thought he was guilty so it was more a matter of going through why the undecided were undecided, what their questions/reservations were and talking those over. There weren't any massively strong characters who dominated either.
I did think the jury forepersons were quite weak (or came across as weak in the edit). They should have taken more of a lead in shutting down the idea that a battle between side and focused more on discussing people's doubts.

Agreed
its a can of worms, I now want to know the criteria of jury selection for these type of cases. Obviously to remain fair it would be men/women different backgrounds. Etc Etc… I would hope that the selection would also break down into the ability to be - understanding see both sides of everything and to a certain extent be honest with themselves that they can go home and sleep at night knowing they’ve made the right choice ultimately. They shouldn’t be forced into a decision or being made to feel forced more to the point.
Definitely coaching of some description, even beginning when at school? Add to the curriculum. Law and personal responsibilities

I struggle to see how one jury and the real life jury came to the manslaughter verdict, unless the real jury also had a Ricky. Did the prosecution actually do a good enough job?

Thousands of people experience extreme abuse in relationships and don't kill their partner. I was in an abusive relationship. I left. I know not everyone can easily leave and in this case, she was living in his house. I didn't leave immediately and circumstances made it hard but I did it for my DC.

I don't see how it could be said a reasonable person would firstly strangle someone, and then, when they had at least a moment to reflect, go and get a hammer to finish them off. They are such brutal acts that to me would only be carried out in an extreme situation such as self defence.

I am so sorry x

Aren't jurors selected randomly?

I thought this was a valuable experiment as people are not supposed to discuss what happens in a jury room

Agree that dominant characters played their part - including the comment from a woman about wanting to give him a hug
The misogyny was clear - as was the blurring of real life experiences influencing jurors ( you are told to bring your experience to the debate)

However - if you have been in a jury you will know that so wood the attitudes of fellow jurors are gobsmacking. Victim blaming is rife and some people seem to have a limited grasp of the facts they have been given and the instruction re the law
The law as it stands is deeply flawed- let’s hope this starts a discussion in society

Wow.
Yes, it’s the family that have to pick up the pieces and sometimes that’s what isn’t ultimately at the forefront. The deceased and the families of both sides. It’s a huge responsibility to ask a few people to make a decision.
did anyone watch the British airways murder thing which interestingly enough was on the exact same time as the faux /not fake murder trial experiment?
The judge does have a decision over sentencing and even though it was a similar type of case in a way he got 26 years (equating to 13) I think he’s still in prison??? So it seems like, correct me if I’m wrong, the judge can step in to enforce certain elements toward the conclusion. All be it can’t take away whether it’s manslaughter or murder. That’s for the jurors.

UK juries are but as this was a TV programme it's never going to be as random as a jury (because only certain types of people would want to be on TV) and because they had clearly put together juries that contained people with particular opinions and experiences that would potentially sway them one way of the other.
They weren't a total random group.

In other countries jury system works differently - in America the defence and prosecution can reject a certain number of potential jurors so they can eliminate people they think are likely to be strongly against them.

I was foreperson on one trial. We got to a point of having 11 of 12 on one side and one person on the other. They were quite minded to just acquiesce to the majority view but we made sure that they didn’t feel pressured - like your experience we let them explain their thinking and ask questions. They did change their mind but we all gave them enough time to feel confident in their decision, not to just roll over for an easy life or feel like they didn’t have a choice in the matter.

I struggle to see how one jury and the real life jury came to the manslaughter verdict, unless the real jury also had a Ricky. Did the prosecution actually do a good enough job?

I must say I’m not entirely sure how things work with a loss of control defence. In normal trial without any partial defence, you find the defendant guilty if you are sure of their guilt. If you are not sure beyond reasonable doubt, then they are not guilty.

The red jury who found him guilty of manslaughter seemed to be using the same principle - unless they were sure he had t lost control, then it had to be manslaughter. The persuasion of the undecideds seemed to come down to “we can’t know exactly what goes on in someone’s heads, so it must be manslaughter”. But is that how a loss of control verdict should work?

My case was a fairly minor offence and without a clear 'victim' so we didn't have any issues of did they deserve it/ victim blaming to deal with which obviously would have been a different affair.
It was less than 3 days of evidence and really quite an open and shut case (pretty strong evidence no real defense) so it was a case of about half being happy to convict straight off and the other half wanting to check stuff and be reassured that they weren't wrong and about to ruin someone's life (it was pretty obvious that it wasn't his first offense event though we weren't told that).
We did lots of what is reasonable doubt/ if your are not 100% certain does that meet that threshold of reasonable doubt? Could have evidence X have meant y instead of z? One by one the not sures became sure but we didn't really have anyone pulling them the other way so it was less complicated.

It wasn’t necessary in this case as he had pled guilty to manslaughter

This was so distressing. The victim blaming was awful. I know we didn't see the whole trial evidence, but I think it would have been really important to explain to them just how difficult it is to strangle someone. It takes force and time. Minutes. Not seconds. He would be looking in her face watching her turn blue. Then, whilst she was lying on the ground, still unconscious, he bashed her head in with a hammer 3 times.

What other reason than misogyny was there for not agreeing it was murder?

What instruction did the judge give them? How was the law explained to them? Did the defence explain that at each step in the process he could have stopped and he showed premeditation in going for the hammer.

I'm disgusted by the bullying and comments made. It shows how one loud character can bully the others to changing their minds.

I would be scared if I was the partner to some of those men. Frightening the whole bloody thing.

I was furious at some of the comments. On the whole, blue jury were more measured and respectful toesch other. But the two manslaughter jurors on tbe blue were ultimately saying, that they think if they were under pressure they don't know what they would do. That doesn't mean loss of control, that means that you too would be a murderer.

On the red jury they had the conversation about spitting. Green shirt was saying that if someone spat on him he would loose control. I don't think some of them grasped loss of control. They were trying to justifying using extreme violence, which says more about them. Very sad that the poor victim didn't receive the justice she deserved 😢

@CecilyP no in the case of @WingingItSince1973 brothers murder, the accused was released as only murder was offered to the jury.

Oh right; I hadn’t read the full thread, so didn’t realise this was about another case.

Definitely this! Lots of very big characters who were talking about the case long before they’d heard any evidence (unless this was the editing). And Mr Green shirt, particularly, taking it as a personal victory when the others came round to his point of view.

The red jury who found him guilty of manslaughter seemed to be using the same principle - unless they were sure he had t lost control, then it had to be manslaughter. The persuasion of the undecideds seemed to come down to “we can’t know exactly what goes on in someone’s heads, so it must be manslaughter”. But is that how a loss of control verdict should work?

Did my own reading round this and I think yes, that is how it should work - burden of proof lies with prosecution to prove the defendent hadn't lost control. So if the jury were in any doubt, then manslaughter was the right verdict.

I think I'd have found the same if I was on the jury to be honest.

It's also notable that in the real trial, the sentence imposed by the judge was towards the lower end of the range available to them, which suggests the judge was in agreement with the jury (contrasting to the British Airways case mentioned above).

What other reason than misogyny was there for not agreeing it was murder?

What instruction did the judge give them? How was the law explained to them? Did the defence explain that at each step in the process he could have stopped and he showed premeditation in going for the hammer.

It would have been for the prosecution to explain that, not the defence. But a loss of control can be sustained over a period of time that you were 'not in your right mind'. I'm not really sure how I feel about it as a defence - it does seem a bit perverse that in that moment of 'lost control' you can be hell bent on killing someone, but that's not seen as murder in the eyes of law.

But the two manslaughter jurors on tbe blue were ultimately saying, that they think if they were under pressure they don't know what they would do. That doesn't mean loss of control, that means that you too would be a murderer.

That is the nature of the loss of control defence though - that "a person of the defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way." - so it's not unreasonable for the jury to consider (particularly the men of a similar age!) whether they felt they could have reacted in a similar way under that degree of pressure. Personally I can't imagine any circumstances short of mortal fear for my life or my children's lives that I could bludgeon someone with a hammer, but that's not to say that other 'normal' people couldn't imagine being pressured into doing so.

(the victim isn't on trial)

Unlike rape cases ...

Nazir Afzal saying if someone else would have acted in exactly the same way that would make it manslaughter for me made it very clear that it should have been murder.

I agree that green shirt with his celebrating the result was disgusting - him getting his way appeared to be what mattered more than justice. You could see the jurors who regretted giving in to the pressure.

It's also notable that in the real trial, the sentence imposed by the judge was towards the lower end of the range available to them, which suggests the judge was in agreement with the jury (contrasting to the British Airways case mentioned above).

Agreed, and the most significant thing missing from the programme was the judge's summing up which would have explained further to the jury how they should decide their verdict. Although the crux of the programme was to show how juries interact, (which probably didn't compare very accurately to real life juries) this was a pretty important thing to to have left out.

In addition, we didn't hear anything in court about the fact that the victim died in hospital, which I only found out from this thread. So either the assistant, or John, when he came to his senses would have called an ambulance.

Im utterly gobsmacked by the verdict of manslaughter

I thought i was open minded snd liberal but how can bludgeoning someone in the head with a hammer ever be excused?

The comments about her not keeping the house tidy, calling him fat etc

He's a nice guy but snapped. That's one help of a tragic and brutal snap

So we can all hammer our spouses heads in if they annoy us and will be out in a three years

I wondered that too. The judge had never mentioned beyond reasonable doubt did he… it was just introduced by green shirt to successfully sway everyone. Although to be honest I have not a doubt in my mind that he was in control when he went and got a hammer and caved her head in.

I was gobsmacked that the verdict in the real trial was manslaughter too, I would have gone for murder 100%, how can someone be "out of control" the whole time it takes to stop strangling her go to the shed and get a hammer then hit her 3 times with it while she's semi conscious??? Unbelievable! I can only think that the prosecution didn't do a very good job, there was a comment from her family at the end credits saying they didn't get a say in the trial, maybe character references from her family and friends would have swayed it