Languish.org

Sheilbhs favourite journalist has an opinion.
What say you?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/01/pub-argument-love-island-the-jury-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

QuoteThis article contains spoilers about the final episode of The Jury: Murder Trial

Should juries be abolished? Last night's Channel 4 docudrama of a real trial, The Jury: Murder Trial, opened with the question: "Can we trust our justice system?" The only answer any reasonable viewer could give was no.

This four-part series assembled two separate juries to pass judgment on a real-life case, re-enacted by actors speaking from the transcript of the original trial. The jurors knew already that the defendant had killed his wife. The issue was whether he was provoked beyond the bounds of "self-control". In other words, was it murder or manslaughter, a life sentence or two to three years in prison? At the end, the two juries reached opposing verdicts. Where lay justice?

I have served on juries three times, including as foreman on a case of attempted murder. In each case the time-wasting and theatricality was absurd. Money and time were pointlessly consumed, and in our murder case I had no doubt justice was not done. Many friends, most of whom had wriggled out of jury service, thought it was "frightfully good" for people like me to meet such "different" people in the jury room. They seemed to regard jury service as merely social therapy for the middle classes.

Jury trials are justice as play acting. They are presented as a binary argument with only one winner

The television programme was like a pub argument relocated to Love Island. The participants knew they were watching actors and were themselves "acting" as jurors. They duly hyped the emotion. But they did it well. Having volunteered, they were clearly an outspoken bunch. Most jurors in my experience tend to be relatively nervous and tight-lipped.


Jury rooms are dens of claustrophobia where strong personalities, chemistry and emotion inevitably get tangled. Reasoned debate is lost in the fug of who gets on with whom. In this series, what should have been a discussion of anger control under provocation became a battleground in which retributive justice was pitted against human sympathy. The format of the trial forced argument into a technical straitjacket: was it murder or manslaughter, with no nuance in between, and no summing up by the judge was shown.

Jurors inevitably turned to their personal experiences. It was intriguing how sympathy for the husband was expressed by older jurors who had seen similar marital crises. "I, too, remember being stressed out of myself," said more than one. Younger jurors, one aged 19, were more punitive. But there was little mention of criminal psychology, let alone retribution or rehabilitation. There was just a vague sense of "what does she deserve" and what does he.

Jurists sit round a table in The Jury: Murder Trial
'Jurors inevitably turned to their personal experiences' ... The Jury: Murder Trial. Photograph: Rob Parfitt/Channel 4
For all its heightened drama, what the programme revealed was the central failing of British justice. The courtroom trial is dominated by an unreal Socratic dichotomy of good and evil, represented by costumed barristers. At no point did experts in criminal behaviour sit round and discuss a middle ground, a sensible way forward to help the man, his family and society out of what had been a ghastly tragedy. Everyone had to be simply for him or against him.

The irony is that the only place where such discussion did half take place was in what amounted to an unchaired saloon bar shouting match: "I can't bear this"; "They're all screaming at me"; "I don't know if I'd want to be triied by a jury." I kept thinking: why is this not moved to open court? It might be of some service to justice if the judge at least got to hear all the arguments before his summing up. The concept of juries remaining blind as to their reasons is medieval.

Jury trials are justice as play acting, as if imitating the film 12 Angry Men. They are presented as a binary argument with only one winner. In my attempted murder case, the judge was so dismissive of the poor performance of the young prosecuting counsel he told us we should consider acquittal.

Courts need experts and judges, not amateurs from off the street

Nowadays disputes in serious criminal trials tend to turn on digital, chemical or financial evidence, and are vulnerable to identity bias. That is why civil, rape, terrorist and fraud trials rarely have juries. Goodness knows what juries will make of artificial intelligence cases. Other than in matters of personal judgment, such as defamation or hate crime, courts need experts and judges, not amateurs from off the street.

Jury trials are dying out across Europe in favour of the German practice of judges and lay assessors. In Britain, more are being tried by magistrates alone. There is no evidence of a resulting crime wave. Instead, England and Wales already send more people to prison than anywhere in western Europe. One country that famously sends far more people to prison than Britain is one even more attached to juries, the US.

In the US, jury trials have so crowded the court system that it is approaching breakdown. The result is that an estimated 90-95% of all criminal cases now avoid trial and go to plea bargaining. In other words, neither side airs its case in public or before lay magistrates, let alone tests it before a jury. There is simply a private negotiation between lawyers and a judge, often built round a half-hearted but heavily enforced admission of guilt.

The overstretched British court system has shown no similar inclination to go for streamlining. The justice system is so hidebound by tradition it will not even end the bifurcation of solicitors and barristers. This indefensible restrictive practice should have stopped long ago.

Britain's juries are a quaint medieval hangover, as once were lay constables. They should go. The best foreign practice should be studied and imitated. It took a recent television programme to end the subpostmaster scandal. Perhaps one should now serve to end the nonsense of juries.

- Simon de Jenkins, Lord of Counter-Britain

So, I don't want to claim an appeal to authority here, but I have, you know, actually run jury trials  Hell I picked a jury about 2 weeks ago (only top have a guilty plea the first day of trial).  I might be the only Languisher who runs jury trials (unless AmScip shows up - CC is a civil lawyer whose experience I respect, but civil matters hardly ever go to juries, and as I understand it Gups and Sheilbh are generally not trial lawyers).

So the thing I love about juries - they take it so seriously.  Sometimes as us jaded trial lawyer (and jaded trial judges) we can start to be a bit glib about these things.  But juries play it completely straight.  I totally respect that.

But the thing is - they are so expensive!  For my recent jury selection we must have pulled about 200 regular citizens out of their everyday lives and forced them to come to court.  We then proceeded to pick 4 juries - 3 sex assaults, and then me with a residential B&E.  Those selected to serve on each jury then had to dedicate a week or more of their lives to the case.  Lots of people came forward to say how they couldn't afford to take a week off of work.  In Alberta ta least, a juror gets $50 per day plus food - which is almost certainly a lot less then whatever they earn at their jobs.  So juries wind up being heavily biased towards retirees and civil servants (who get paid their regular wage) - which isn't exactly a "jury of your peers".

So for the article itself - all are valid points.  But is it really any better a system then handing everything over to some random judge (who is just a lawyer with lots of experience)?  Having appeared in front of so many, many judges over the years, they all have their biases, idiosyncrasies and faults.  Is just throwing things in front of 12 random people really a worse way of doing things?

So - I had a trial about a month ago.  Judge alone, so not a jury.  Accused testified in his own defence.  I thought the Accused's story was ridiculous.  Judge convicted.  But the judge not only convicted the Accused, they labelled the Accused as "one of the top 5 liars they've ever seen", gave me a transcript of the Accused's testimony and suggested I investigate the Accused for perjury.

For legal reasons I won't go into - we'd never even consider a perjury charge.  But I never would have even thought to argue the Accused was lying - just that he was highly unreliable.

So should we have juries?  I'm on the fence.  I think there's something to be said for them, and handing matters to "expert" judges not necessarily much better.  But I also know the wait times for trials - it's a year or more.  So I don't know if the benefit we get from a jury is really worth the expense to the whole system.

And one other point - in my experience, juries are almost always only selected for sex assaults, and maybe murders.  When I showed up with my B&E trial it was highly unusual.

Judgements by people are flawed.  Whether a judgement by 12 flawed people is better or worse than judgement by one flawed person is an interesting question, but that's not that kind of open-ended question that the author was interested in pursuing, ironically enough.  "We should avoid binary solution sets, so should we abolish juries or not?"

So reading the original article again more closely - the author is making his judgment based on a Channel 4 re-creation of a real jury trial.

But that's the thing - it's not real.  They had apparently 2 juries, who came to different conclusions.  Lets put aside that the issue of murder vs manslaughter can be difficult.  But the jurors knew that what they were doing wasn't real - it wouldn't affect anyone's lives.  So inherently what they were doing was play-acting.

LIke I said earlier - what impresses me about real jury trials is how seriously they take it.  But that dynamic would be entirely missing in some TV re-enactment.

BB is correct that I have never done a jury trial as a practising lawyer but as a judicial law clerk in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, I saw them in action from the judge's point of view, giving the instructions and answering the questions of the jurors. That was many years ago, so things may have changed, but I was also struck by how seriously the jurors took their responsibility.

I used to be gung ho about jury trials but the OJ case changed my mind.

Id prefer jury for criminal cases, but on higher complexity matters I find it odd to use juries.

Quote from: HVC on March 01, 2024, 03:10:49 PMId prefer jury for criminal cases, but on higher complexity matters I find it odd to use juries.

You will be happy to know that in non criminal cases the complexity of the issues in dispute is a ground for not proceeding with a jury trial. That and the cost are the two main reasons they are rarely used in civil trials in Canada.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2024, 02:54:31 PMI used to be gung ho about jury trials but the OJ case changed my mind.

I mean (in particular in light of my job) - I think the OJ jury came to the wrong decision.

But do I think a judge alone would have come to the "right" decision? Not necessarily.

Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2024, 03:58:41 PMBut do I think a judge alone would have come to the "right" decision? Not necessarily.

Are you aware of cases in which the judge fucked up the verdict to the same extent?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2024, 04:12:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2024, 03:58:41 PMBut do I think a judge alone would have come to the "right" decision? Not necessarily.

Are you aware of cases in which the judge fucked up the verdict to the same extent?

Dude!

All the fucking time!

OJ was particularly difficult because the trial ran for weeks.  And remember of course that all 12 jurors agreed on the verdict.  That case happened a long time ago, and while I wasn't a lawyer yet and didn't watch every minute, I was very interested in the outcome.  But yeah - I do not think a judge alone was guaranteed to come to a different verdict.

Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2024, 04:18:45 PMBut yeah - I do not think a judge alone was guaranteed to come to a different verdict.

Not exactly the question I asked.

What I'm looking for is some probability distribution of right vs. boneheaded verdicts.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2024, 04:44:41 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2024, 04:18:45 PMBut yeah - I do not think a judge alone was guaranteed to come to a different verdict.

Not exactly the question I asked.

What I'm looking for is some probability distribution of right vs. boneheaded verdicts.

Almost impossible to say.

If we had some kind of iron-clad way of determining what the "right" verdict was - we'd use it.  Instead we're stuck with our imperfect trial system.  We got a rush of cases 20 years ago when DNA came available of proving that even earlier cases were decided wrongly, but that's been about it.

So when I say judges come to wrong decisions all the time - that's just my word as a, you know, the job I do.

Quote from: Barrister on March 01, 2024, 04:52:59 PMAlmost impossible to say.

If we had some kind of iron-clad way of determining what the "right" verdict was - we'd use it.  Instead we're stuck with our imperfect trial system.  We got a rush of cases 20 years ago when DNA came available of proving that even earlier cases were decided wrongly, but that's been about it.

So when I say judges come to wrong decisions all the time - that's just my word as a, you know, the job I do.

That's what I'm asking for.  Your personal opinion about relative frequency of boneheaded verdicts.

What's the alternative to jury people visualize?

Anatomy of a Fall :ph34r:

Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2024, 05:11:38 PMWhat's the alternative to jury people visualize?

I kinda like Trial by Ordeal.  We should have pie eating contests.

The point I thought interesting was the one about how the system boils everything down to a strict binary and a better system would seem to find nuance.
Which is the way things work, just not for the jury.


Also on the professionals get things wrong part - surely at least there they're getting it wrong based on something. It's a measurable error. With juries it's a coin flip.


Surprised to hear about the jurors being serious. Do they filter out the non serious folks first?- in tv shows I've seen like the OJ trial there is this big selection process first, how common is that?
 Or do the people who don't want to be there always find excuses to get themselves out of it since they would lose money to little benefit?

I've had to write letters for our engineers stating undue hardship to the company (ie we can't replace them). That was enough to get them out of jury duty. It had the added benefit of being true.

People keep forgetting that the OJ trial resulted in acquittal because the investigative detective turned out to be a racist perjurer.   I'm not at all convinced that a judge-only trial would have turned out any differently.  The prosecution failed mostly because the LAPD made the error of hiring and promoting Mark Fuhrman.  What's a judge going to do when the chief investigator takes the Fifth when asked if he planted evidence in the case?

I have a relevant anecdote from Ukraine.  A brother of our family friend was murdered in Ukraine.  His murderer was caught on the spot, and his trial was the first ever jury trial in Ukraine.  The way it was structured, there were two judges and three civilians on the jury.  The murderer was acquitted, with all the judges voting to convict and all the jurors voting to acquit.

Thankfully, there was no such thing as a double jeopardy, so the prosecutors appealed, and the murderer was sentenced to 15 years in prison.  My understanding is that factually there was no question as to who did it, so from that point of view, in a rather suboptimal legal system, the judges got it more right.

Was it a "he had it coming" type situation?

Quote from: HVC on March 01, 2024, 09:00:17 PMWas it a "he had it coming" type situation?

Well, the victim was Jewish, so who knows?

Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2024, 07:54:54 PMPeople keep forgetting that the OJ trial resulted in acquittal because the investigative detective turned out to be a racist perjurer. 

This.
Prosecution case based heavily on DNA evidence + FUBAR chain-of-custody for said DNA evidence + proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard = acquittal.

I thought the article was pretty silly.  As BB points out, you can't draw any conclusion from what a fake play-acting jury does when they know in advance that they are a fake play-acting jury.  At most it proves that laypeople make shitty actor-jurors.

His judgment that juries dont work because two (fake) juries came to different conclusions is also silly.  Cases that don't settle and go to trial often do so because it is a very close call between guilt and innocence and reasonable people could come to different conclusions.  That appears to be so for the fake scenario which appears to have been designed to be a close call issue.

My experience is similar to BB: most jurors try their best to consider the evidence objectively and take their job seriously.  They are prone to errors in reasoning but only because they are human beings and all human beings are subject to error. 

A single judge is not an obvious improvement.  Judges may be slightly better on average on maintaining objectivity but most judges lack expertise with scientific and statistical evidence and are prone to falling into the same logical fallacies as anyone else.  Eg Sally Clark (the SIDS statistical fallacy case) was convicted by a jury but only because the judge accepted and let through flawed statistical analysis. And the lack of any check from 11 other observors with different perspectives is a negative.

Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2024, 06:00:30 PM

Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2024, 05:11:38 PMWhat's the alternative to jury people visualize?

I kinda like Trial by Ordeal.  We should have pie eating contests.

Who would the accused compete against...the judge? :hmm:

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 01, 2024, 10:08:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2024, 06:00:30 PMI kinda like Trial by Ordeal.  We should have pie eating contests.

Who would the accused compete against...the judge? :hmm:

Joey Chestnut.  100% conviction rate.

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 01, 2024, 10:08:31 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2024, 06:00:30 PM

Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2024, 05:11:38 PMWhat's the alternative to jury people visualize?

I kinda like Trial by Ordeal.  We should have pie eating contests.

Who would the accused compete against...the judge? :hmm:

Prosecutors would be expert pie eaters.  Stand aside BB, it's Raz's time to shine.

Quote from: Josquius on March 01, 2024, 07:02:48 PMSurprised to hear about the jurors being serious. Do they filter out the non serious folks first?- in tv shows I've seen like the OJ trial there is this big selection process first, how common is that?
 Or do the people who don't want to be there always find excuses to get themselves out of it since they would lose money to little benefit?

So jurors being serious - I can't emphasize this enough.  They really are.  It's the one really awesome aspect of the jury system (in the original meaning of awesome).

Yes there is a selection bias.  If you don't want to be on a jury you have an opportunity to say so, for whatever reason.  If the reason isn't great the judge will say "well I'm not going to excuse you, but maybe we'll just put you back in the pool".  But the reality is those people are not selected.  I believe I mentioned that juries wind up overwhelmingly being civil servants (because the government pays your salary while on the jury) or retired people.

When I was selected for a jury in a civil case, we the jury existed for an hour, as the case got settled soon after the jury was selected.  The funniest thing was that for that hour, in the room with all the jurors, everyone seemed to be in a competition to express the greatest devastation and distress at being selected for a jury.  The truth is that no one would be there if they didn't want to be there.

Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2024, 12:13:21 AMWhen I was selected for a jury in a civil case, we the jury existed for an hour, as the case got settled soon after the jury was selected.  The funniest thing was that for that hour, in the room with all the jurors, everyone seemed to be in a competition to express the greatest devastation and distress at being selected for a jury.  The truth is that no one would be there if they didn't want to be there.

Yeah - I mean there's always the Homer Simpson method of beating jury duty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmgcbsFFY1A

But yes - if you make it clear you don't want to be on a jury, either the judge or the lawyers will excuse you (note: in Canada we no longer have preemptory challenges, so it would only be the judge that can excuse you.  But they will).

I do planning and real estate litigation so no specialist professional knowledge. However, like the author I have served on three juries, the last as foreman. In each case, everyone took their job very seriously. The listened to the evidence carefully and discussed it in the jury room with mutual respect. Of course, my anecdotal experience is no more persuasive than his.

Don't have a real opinion on juries.

We have courts with a bench of professional and lay judges. The lay judges are selected for a time period like a year or two, hearing cases during that time (not as s full-time job though). That system seems to work reasonably well.

My mother did that before for juvenile criminal court. A colleague who is in a trade union sits on a labour court as a lay judge.

I need to look into how Austria does it. I know from reading news about court cases that in some instances there's one judge in some cases, some cases have juries, and other cases have one judge with two lay judges.

According to wiki:

QuoteThe court is actively involved, questioning witnesses brought forward by the parties to the trials, summoning expert witnesses on its own initiative, and generally attempting to determine the truth. Most trials are bench trials, although the bench will often be a panel including one or more lay judges (Schöffen). Criminal defendants accused of political transgressions or of serious crimes with severe penalties have a right to trial by jury.

Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2024, 12:02:39 AMSo jurors being serious - I can't emphasize this enough.  They really are.  It's the one really awesome aspect of the jury system (in the original meaning of awesome).

Yes there is a selection bias.  If you don't want to be on a jury you have an opportunity to say so, for whatever reason.  If the reason isn't great the judge will say "well I'm not going to excuse you, but maybe we'll just put you back in the pool".  But the reality is those people are not selected.  I believe I mentioned that juries wind up overwhelmingly being civil servants (because the government pays your salary while on the jury) or retired people.

There is some selection bias although in my own experience juries tend to be much more varied in backround.  There is something about the experience of being in the very formal setting of a courtroom, the process of being sworn in and seated in a special section, and all the pomp and cirumstance, that socializes people to act differently then they would in their ordinary casual conduct.  Everyday life is often about assuming different roles in different social circumstances and everything about the jury process pushes people into assuming the role expected of them.

We may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2024, 05:26:44 PMWe may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

Was Friedkin's 1997 version of 12 Angry Men really that bad?  :P

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 04, 2024, 08:53:14 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2024, 05:26:44 PMWe may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

Was Friedkin's 1997 version of 12 Angry Men really that bad?  :P

Yes.  While it had a good cast, each one of them as just that small increment worse than the actor whose place they were taking, bar Hume Cronyn.

Having served on two juries, one civil and one criminal, my opinion based on my experiences is: no, we should not do trial by jury, unless we're talking professional jurists in the French style.

Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2024, 01:02:06 PMHaving served on two juries, one civil and one criminal, my opinion based on my experiences is: no, we should not do trial by jury, unless we're talking professional jurists in the French style.

Why?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

I don't think juries have to be civil necessarily, but criminal juries is unacceptable.

Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2024, 01:27:54 PMI don't think juries have to be civil necessarily, but criminal juries is unacceptable.

I don't think criminals are eligible for jury duty?

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 01:03:39 PMWhy?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy' :Embarrass:

Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2024, 10:06:37 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 04, 2024, 08:53:14 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2024, 05:26:44 PMWe may or may not need to get rid of juries, but we absolutely do need to get rid of non-parody remakes of 12 Angry Men.

Was Friedkin's 1997 version of 12 Angry Men really that bad?  :P

Yes.  While it had a good cast, each one of them as just that small increment worse than the actor whose place they were taking, bar Hume Cronyn.

It's a remake OTOH, so competing with the original one is almost impossible (Sorcerer does not count, it's another adaptation of a literary work  :P ).

I will watch it on the silver screen in a couple of monts during a Friedkin retrospective ; my expectations have been lowered.  ;)

Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2024, 01:27:54 PMI don't think juries have to be civil necessarily, but criminal juries is unacceptable.

I dunno. It's meant to be a jury of your peers. If you're on trial for being a professional shop lifter shouldnt the jury be made of shop lifters? :contract:

Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2024, 02:30:46 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 01:03:39 PMWhy?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy' :Embarrass:

I dunno - if you're trying to send someone to jail for many years, your theory and evidence should probably be simple enough that "idiot randos" can understand it.

As well, the whole system is designed pretty deliberately to rely on peer pressure.  We expect the 12 jurors to be unanimous - which can only happen if you think about it by people leaning on peer pressure.

The number of hung juries is really quite low when you think what are the odds of getting 12 random people to agree on almost anything.

 e:

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 03:17:59 PM

Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2024, 02:30:46 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 01:03:39 PMWhy?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy' :Embarrass:

I dunno - if you're trying to send someone to jail for many years, your theory and evidence should probably be simple enough that "idiot randos" can understand it.

As well, the whole system is designed pretty deliberately to rely on peer pressure.  We expect the 12 jurors to be unanimous - which can only happen if you think about it by people leaning on peer pressure.

The number of hung juries is really quite low when you think what are the odds of getting 12 random people to agree on almost anything.

What of the backlash effect and the increasing modern trend for some to want to be contratian in all things however?

I've never had anything to do with trials but in the world in general peer pressure isn't what it once was.
People no longer fear being ostracised from their community

Quote from: Josquius on March 05, 2024, 03:32:00 PMe:

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 03:17:59 PM

Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2024, 02:30:46 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 01:03:39 PMWhy?

If you want to be more private, take it to the back room where I've posted my thoughts given my own experience. You'll figure out which thread.

No need for privacy since I wasn't intending to divulge details (but if you really really want them, I can post in TBR)... the general reason is that in both cases, there were phenomenally ignorant people serving alongside me, and it scares the shit out of me that you could be on trial for your life and have your fate in the hands of idiot randos.  Like, one lady just could not remember the terms 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' and just kept referring to the defendant as 'the bad guy' :Embarrass:

I dunno - if you're trying to send someone to jail for many years, your theory and evidence should probably be simple enough that "idiot randos" can understand it.

As well, the whole system is designed pretty deliberately to rely on peer pressure.  We expect the 12 jurors to be unanimous - which can only happen if you think about it by people leaning on peer pressure.

The number of hung juries is really quite low when you think what are the odds of getting 12 random people to agree on almost anything.

What of the backlash effect and the increasing modern trend for some to want to be contratian in all things however?

I've never had anything to do with trials but in the world in general peer pressure isn't what it once was.
People no longer fear being ostracised from their community

It's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 03:37:29 PMIt's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

Indeed.  Especially with the judge telling you all that he will not accept a hung jury verdict.  Being an asshole won't get you out of the room any more quickly.

Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2024, 07:56:36 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 03:37:29 PMIt's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

Indeed.  Especially with the judge telling you all that he will not accept a hung jury verdict.  Being an asshole won't get you out of the room any more quickly.

I've experienced this too.  In the criminal case, the defendant was black (he was a Jamaican immigrant) and even though in his defense he never once brought his race up, one of the jurors decided to make the case about police brutality and American racism (she was a naturalized immigrant from Ireland) and wasted a few hours yelling about that till she relented and joined the guilty vote.

Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 10:27:31 AM

Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2024, 07:56:36 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 03:37:29 PMIt's one thing to be an anti-social asshole online.

It's another to do it in a closed room with 11 other people.

Indeed.  Especially with the judge telling you all that he will not accept a hung jury verdict.  Being an asshole won't get you out of the room any more quickly.

I've experienced this too.  In the criminal case, the defendant was black (he was a Jamaican immigrant) and even though in his defense he never once brought his race up, one of the jurors decided to make the case about police brutality and American racism (she was a naturalized immigrant from Ireland) and wasted a few hours yelling about that till she relented and joined the guilty vote.

That is always a concern (at least for the lawyers).  Not allegations of racism, specifically, but that jurors will have their own individualized knowledge and bring that into the jury room.

It's been a long time since I saw 12 Angry Men, but that's I think the conceit of the movie.  Each of the jurors is coming from their own biases when they originally vote for "guilty".

Or one I saw more recently - My Cousin Vinny.  The conclusion is Marissa Tomei's character being qualified as an expert and saying that the Accused's car couldn't have been the one involved in the murder because of it's colour and posi-traction.  But what if one the jurors stood up in the jury room and said "I'm a car salesman and she's just wrong".  That person is not giving evidence, is not questioned by the lawyers - but is still giving information the jury is considering.

I mean in your case considering the Accused's race is fair game - but only within the evidence produced.  "The way police treated the Accused in this case was racist" is one thing, "the way police treat black people in America is racist" is another.

Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2024, 11:52:35 AMI mean in your case considering the Accused's race is fair game - but only within the evidence produced.  "The way police treated the Accused in this case was racist" is one thing, "the way police treat black people in America is racist" is another.

I may not be using this term correctly, but if I recall correctly she was basically arguing for nullification, because 'black people are treated so badly in America' so therefore he didn't deserve to be convicted for his specific action, which was a DUI.

Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 03:56:23 PM

Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2024, 11:52:35 AMI mean in your case considering the Accused's race is fair game - but only within the evidence produced.  "The way police treated the Accused in this case was racist" is one thing, "the way police treat black people in America is racist" is another.

I may not be using this term correctly, but if I recall correctly she was basically arguing for nullification, because 'black people are treated so badly in America' so therefore he didn't deserve to be convicted for his specific action, which was a DUI.

Yup - the term is jury nullification.

So - it's not (as I understand it) a legal principle at all.  No party - not the prosecution, defence, or judge - can say to the jury "hey you can just not follow the law if you don't like it".  That in itself could be grounds for an appeal.

But by virtue of the fact a jury verdict can not be appealed (absent an error by the judge, not the jury) that means jury nullification is de facto a real thing.

It came up in a series of prosecutions against Canadian abortionist Dr. Morgenthaler.  He was prosecuted several times in the 70s and 80s, and several times the jury acquitted, despite the Crown seemingly haven proven its case.  (and just for historical record - abortion wasn't banned back then, but I think you needed to go get permission from a panel of doctors - and Morgenthaler wasn't doing any of that).

That being said - a jury trial for a DUI is insane.

I agree it was insane.  After the conviction, the judge came in and talked to us and told us that he refused to plead guilty, even after being offered a generous plea bargain.

Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 04:09:41 PMI agree it was insane.  After the conviction, the judge came in and talked to us and told us that he refused to plead guilty, even after being offered a generous plea bargain.

Neither you nor the judge should know that.

*shrug*

Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2024, 04:18:50 PM

Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2024, 04:09:41 PMI agree it was insane.  After the conviction, the judge came in and talked to us and told us that he refused to plead guilty, even after being offered a generous plea bargain.

Neither you nor the judge should know that.

The judge *could* know if a plea was agreed but fell apart during the allocution, but he still shouldn't be telling the jury that, even after the case was over.

I was surprised when he came in and spoke to us at all.  I didn't know judges could do that... first time I served on a jury.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 03, 2024, 02:59:24 PMThere is some selection bias although in my own experience juries tend to be much more varied in backround.  There is something about the experience of being in the very formal setting of a courtroom, the process of being sworn in and seated in a special section, and all the pomp and cirumstance, that socializes people to act differently then they would in their ordinary casual conduct.  Everyday life is often about assuming different roles in different social circumstances and everything about the jury process pushes people into assuming the role expected of them.

Saw an interesting story that touches on this about family courts in the UK. For many years the trend there has been towards informality. The judges aren't robed, often there's no "bench" it's all around a conference table etc.

And apparently the judiciary are goinig to start experimenting with reversing that - I think there may be more separate seating for judges, who will be robed etc. There's been a problem of litigants basically not taking the judge seriously and also a big rise in abusive behaviour towards judges. So they want to see if re-introducing more formality will socialise the court differently.

But what you say is true here my understanding is that in the UK broadly speaking the most formal dress from judges and barristers in terms of robes and wigs is in criminal cases, precisely to emphasise that there is something different going on - that you're stepping into a different formal space with certain rules and conventions. It's less formal on the civil side and, broadly speaking, the higher you go up the appeals chain (I don't think the Supreme Court wear robes ever when sitting - and I don't think barristers do in the Supreme Court either).

It's a bit like the approach to filming here - which I think is the opposite of the US. Supreme Court hearings and judgements are, broadly speaking, livestreamed. I think some Court of Appeal decisions are livestreamed and in some cases a judge's sentencing remarks in a criminal case are livestreamed. They're relatively rarely picked up by broadcasters (but were for the Brexit cases) - but the theory is that it's a tool for improving public knowledge/trust in the law. So you broadcast decisions or, in the case of the Supreme Court, arguments about points of law, but you don't have livestreams of the fact-finding bits of the court.

I've no experience of juries in any way but everything here lines up with what I've heard. That people take the responsibility really seriously.

QuoteI don't think criminals are eligible for jury duty?

:lol:

Broadly in the UK there's no juries in civil trials - it's still a possibility for libel but very, very rare. I broadly think that's right. I'm more of the view that criminal trials are the ones that really need juries.