I recently served my community be being on a jury service,
I absolutely bloody loved it, and can't wait to get called again.
Any of you done it, how did you find it?
Did it 2 months ago, am now in favour of abolishing juries. Just too much time wasted, waiting around.
I had one indecent images case and one GBH. You ?
I did it in 2011 and enjoyed it too!
I was on what was meant to be quite a long rape trial (multiple counts multiple victims), but after much discussion behind closed doors it ended up being a just over two week trial
Was justice served ?
guilty or not guilty Phoebe?
the rule of law was served,
he was found guilty of some not guilty of others
was the sentencing there and then?
goodness no, based on the sentencing guidelines I reckon he will get nine years
I haven't, but I am desperate to.
Did you send anyone down?
I did a number of years ago, child sec offences, utterly utterly grim the situations some kids find themselves in. Took up smoking again solely so I could be let out during the day.
Perp was guilty. Two highlights for me, one was the perp getting absolutely stomped on by the judge for protesting that prosecution counsel was leading him in cross examination. The other was being voted in as foreman on the basis that one of the other jurors had heard me say (in answer to a direct question from an usher as to what I did for a living) that I was a solicitor (I had otherwise been careful not to let this slip).
The look of absolute fury on the sandal wearing middle aged vicar type who clearly expected it and had been on maneuvers to get the job was almost worth two weeks of misery.
It's actually quite nerve racking delivering multiple verdicts to multiple offences and trying to remember what was what while standing in the court facing the judge and the perp.
I did it about a decade ago. Got two days into one multi defendant GBH trial before we had to be dismissed as evidently we'd heard something we shouldn't have. Second trial I'd been put on was shoplifting (in the crown court?!) with video evidence (seriously wtaf) and the defendant acting for himself - even then one old biddy wasn't sure (until I and some others bullied her into saying guilty with the rest of us). Came away thinking the whole process was an inefficient waste of time and money.
I was called in the summer for coroner court, which would have been so interesting but sadly I could not attend due to my own family law hearing.
I am still exempt as home is Scotland where lawyers are still barred from doing it
Grey Area - your experience resonates with me. I was also foreman on the basis of being a solicitor and also dealt with multiple familial sex offences over a course of years. Something like 8 counts to deliver with mostly guilty verdicts but a couple of not guiltys sprinkled in. I was amazed that I wasn’t allowed to write them down prior to delivery. I felt like they could easily have been mixed up and I’m not sure anyone else in the jury would have corrected it in the moment.
It was really eye opening as to how most on the jury are led by one or two stronger characters - and you hope those strong characters are conscientious. I tried to be and think I directed the jury to the correct verdicts.
I also noticed an error in the indictment on day 1. Two counts were identical word for word. I passed a note to the judge who delivered a patronising speech as to how indictments often contain very similar counts. On about day 4 he noticed the error himself and had the grace to complement the member of the jury who noticed so quickly.
Generally favour the jury trial system but the thought of people who's reasoning skills, biases & addiction to manipulation are as bad as some up ^^^ there being in charge of someone else's fate. Terrifying. An argument against the death penalty in itself.
Never done it, v jealous tho
Did it last year. It was absolutely terrible and reinforced my view that the English criminal justice system is not fit for purpose.
I don’t really agree with the jury system and if called would do anything I lawfully could to get excused
Never done it. Would never want to do it.
It would be fine if it is a clear cut case, but what if it isn't. And you have voted guilty/not guilty and it turns out that the chap was innocent, and was sent down for 10 years. Or the reverse, he was guilty, but you were persuaded he was innocent, and then he goes on to commit some other crime, murder, rape etc, which he wouldn't have if he was in prison.
And I'm fully in favour of juries, just not me sitting on them!
Rare hard agree with Laz. The jury system is absolute bollox - the notion that (present company excluded) joe public should rule on often complex issues where incarceration is possible is laughable
A mate of mine turned up in a smart pin-striped suit and tie and a copy of the Torygraph under his arm (and put on a posho voice whenever spoken to). Much to his relief he was never selected,........
Judge rules on the complex legal issues. Jury has to rule on facts.
Yes - often complex facts that they're singularly unsuited to deal with, and where the legal test is often difficult for people to follow
i quite fancy it but am not eligible
been called a couple of times in the US but got out of it on the basis of not actually living there. a pal of mine was a prosecutor in Dallas for a while and his stories about the jury selection process were always amusing
Probably not that often JCD - most trials are along the lines of did "A hit/molest/steal from B"? Yes or No.
Take the point on, say, fraud or financial crime
and where the legal test is often difficult for people to follow
That's a failure of judge and prosecution though. They should be making it easy.
Rare hard agree with Laz. The jury system is absolute bollox - the notion that (present company excluded) joe public should rule on often complex issues where incarceration is possible is laughable
Why? If the evidence is put to them sufficiently enough by counsels then I don't see the problem
I've done it . i found it fascinating.
what i found most infuriating was how completely out of your control it all was. you've got no idea what evidence isn't being presented to the jury, what order everything is coming in etc. so far removed from the day job.
what i found bizarre was the (initial) complete divergence on views on guilt / innocence when we retired
what i found best was that I felt that everybody involved in the court room - from professionals, witnesses, jurors, were all trying their hardest to do "justice".
the "pinstripe suit and a telegraph" ruse no longer works sadly.
Rare hard agree with Laz. The jury system is absolute bollox - the notion that (present company excluded) joe public should rule on often complex issues where incarceration is possible is laughable
Why? If the evidence is put to them sufficiently enough by counsels then I don't see the problem
it was very clear that the barristers were not trying to persuade the people on the jury who could deal with high volumes of complex information. they were presenting to the lowest common denominator
I would love it. I was called 3 times when my children were little but I was at home full time with them so could not attend then either !
I got called many years ago but at that time not eligible as being a ‘solicita’….
I'd like to do it but never been called. From the sound of it though there is a lot of hanging around and even if called you might still be sent home without hearing a case.
Fvck jury service for a game of soldiers. My business would be right royally screwed.
Exempt as well as COPFS of the view that I a professional crayoner with vast knowledge of criminal law would have too much sway over the jury...
strutter has always held the view that it would be interesting to see if somebody relatively intelligent and with a strong point of view could sway a jury. i think it's safe to say they could.
Agree with Laz and Buzz. Huge amount of hanging around wasting time, and would be terrible for my practice.
Yup. Had a sex crime.
The defendant was clearly a nasty piece of work who abused his wife and she was terrified of him. The defence was horrible, casting all sorts of aspersions on the victim. But the indictment was for one specific thing and the prosecution didn’t make its case. So he walked. Dreadful stuff and I felt awful for the wife.
Following on from buzz said, a friend who has a business recently did jury service and I think he said that he could claim something like £65 a day in soz (not soz) money for loss of earnings
And also, how clever of you to remember, clubbers
I was foreman on a murder one when I was at uni. We sent him down.
Then I was on another one when I was a trainee - and one side was represented by my own firm. I disclosed the conflict to the court - and the parties and judge agreed it was fine for me to continue. It was very interesting. Cant recall all the details but it was a civil law dispute betwen some political groups - trades unionist and I think some right wing sorts - all working within the same large national organisation. We had been asked to determine on a key question of fact - as to whether someone had posted a comment which i think was alleged to have been libellous or something. They had obviously been negotiating the question to be put to us and it was along the lines "Did Joe Bloggs Account post X". In the course of the proceedings it became blinding obvious to me - and most of the 11other laypeople on the Jury - that the answer was "Yes, but Joe Bloggs himself didn't post it because the Computers were all in the same staff room and people just routinely left accounts open /used each others and the posting style etc of the key statements were absolutely not by Joe Bloggs". Even though this seemed to have passed all the jurists by. Although I suspected my own MC firm might have done a very smart job in getting the wrong question in front of the jury. And the other non big city firm and judge had missed it. As I ferried notes back and forth to the Judge to sort the mess out Im sure I caught someone form my shop rolling his eyes in frustration.
I had to get them to reword the question to something that made sense which we could answer honestly and fairly and probably made all the proceeds more complex
Let justice be done or the heavens fall...
Also probably explains my ongoing disdain for experts and lawyers and our sacred "justice" system.
Did it 2 months ago, am now in favour of abolishing juries. Just too much time wasted, waiting around.
I had one indecent images case and one GBH. You ?
I did it in 2011 and enjoyed it too!
I was on what was meant to be quite a long rape trial (multiple counts multiple victims), but after much discussion behind closed doors it ended up being a just over two week trial
Was justice served ?
guilty or not guilty Phoebe?
the rule of law was served,
he was found guilty of some not guilty of others
was the sentencing there and then?
goodness no, based on the sentencing guidelines I reckon he will get nine years
I haven't, but I am desperate to.
Did you send anyone down?
I did a number of years ago, child sec offences, utterly utterly grim the situations some kids find themselves in. Took up smoking again solely so I could be let out during the day.
Perp was guilty. Two highlights for me, one was the perp getting absolutely stomped on by the judge for protesting that prosecution counsel was leading him in cross examination. The other was being voted in as foreman on the basis that one of the other jurors had heard me say (in answer to a direct question from an usher as to what I did for a living) that I was a solicitor (I had otherwise been careful not to let this slip).
The look of absolute fury on the sandal wearing middle aged vicar type who clearly expected it and had been on maneuvers to get the job was almost worth two weeks of misery.
It's actually quite nerve racking delivering multiple verdicts to multiple offences and trying to remember what was what while standing in the court facing the judge and the perp.
I did it about a decade ago. Got two days into one multi defendant GBH trial before we had to be dismissed as evidently we'd heard something we shouldn't have. Second trial I'd been put on was shoplifting (in the crown court?!) with video evidence (seriously wtaf) and the defendant acting for himself - even then one old biddy wasn't sure (until I and some others bullied her into saying guilty with the rest of us). Came away thinking the whole process was an inefficient waste of time and money.
I was called in the summer for coroner court, which would have been so interesting but sadly I could not attend due to my own family law hearing.
I am still exempt as home is Scotland where lawyers are still barred from doing it
Grey Area - your experience resonates with me. I was also foreman on the basis of being a solicitor and also dealt with multiple familial sex offences over a course of years. Something like 8 counts to deliver with mostly guilty verdicts but a couple of not guiltys sprinkled in. I was amazed that I wasn’t allowed to write them down prior to delivery. I felt like they could easily have been mixed up and I’m not sure anyone else in the jury would have corrected it in the moment.
It was really eye opening as to how most on the jury are led by one or two stronger characters - and you hope those strong characters are conscientious. I tried to be and think I directed the jury to the correct verdicts.
I also noticed an error in the indictment on day 1. Two counts were identical word for word. I passed a note to the judge who delivered a patronising speech as to how indictments often contain very similar counts. On about day 4 he noticed the error himself and had the grace to complement the member of the jury who noticed so quickly.
Generally favour the jury trial system but the thought of people who's reasoning skills, biases & addiction to manipulation are as bad as some up ^^^ there being in charge of someone else's fate. Terrifying. An argument against the death penalty in itself.
Never done it, v jealous tho
Did it last year. It was absolutely terrible and reinforced my view that the English criminal justice system is not fit for purpose.
I don’t really agree with the jury system and if called would do anything I lawfully could to get excused
Never done it. Would never want to do it.
It would be fine if it is a clear cut case, but what if it isn't. And you have voted guilty/not guilty and it turns out that the chap was innocent, and was sent down for 10 years. Or the reverse, he was guilty, but you were persuaded he was innocent, and then he goes on to commit some other crime, murder, rape etc, which he wouldn't have if he was in prison.
And I'm fully in favour of juries, just not me sitting on them!
Rare hard agree with Laz. The jury system is absolute bollox - the notion that (present company excluded) joe public should rule on often complex issues where incarceration is possible is laughable
A mate of mine turned up in a smart pin-striped suit and tie and a copy of the Torygraph under his arm (and put on a posho voice whenever spoken to). Much to his relief he was never selected,........
Judge rules on the complex legal issues. Jury has to rule on facts.
Yes - often complex facts that they're singularly unsuited to deal with, and where the legal test is often difficult for people to follow
i quite fancy it but am not eligible
been called a couple of times in the US but got out of it on the basis of not actually living there. a pal of mine was a prosecutor in Dallas for a while and his stories about the jury selection process were always amusing
Probably not that often JCD - most trials are along the lines of did "A hit/molest/steal from B"? Yes or No.
Take the point on, say, fraud or financial crime
That's a failure of judge and prosecution though. They should be making it easy.
Why? If the evidence is put to them sufficiently enough by counsels then I don't see the problem
I've done it . i found it fascinating.
what i found most infuriating was how completely out of your control it all was. you've got no idea what evidence isn't being presented to the jury, what order everything is coming in etc. so far removed from the day job.
what i found bizarre was the (initial) complete divergence on views on guilt / innocence when we retired
what i found best was that I felt that everybody involved in the court room - from professionals, witnesses, jurors, were all trying their hardest to do "justice".
the "pinstripe suit and a telegraph" ruse no longer works sadly.
LadyofLeisureLou12 Nov 25 14:49
Reply |
Report
Why? If the evidence is put to them sufficiently enough by counsels then I don't see the problem
it was very clear that the barristers were not trying to persuade the people on the jury who could deal with high volumes of complex information. they were presenting to the lowest common denominator
I would love it. I was called 3 times when my children were little but I was at home full time with them so could not attend then either !
I got called many years ago but at that time not eligible as being a ‘solicita’….
I'd like to do it but never been called. From the sound of it though there is a lot of hanging around and even if called you might still be sent home without hearing a case.
Fvck jury service for a game of soldiers. My business would be right royally screwed.
Exempt as well as COPFS of the view that I a professional crayoner with vast knowledge of criminal law would have too much sway over the jury...
strutter has always held the view that it would be interesting to see if somebody relatively intelligent and with a strong point of view could sway a jury. i think it's safe to say they could.
Agree with Laz and Buzz. Huge amount of hanging around wasting time, and would be terrible for my practice.
Yup. Had a sex crime.
The defendant was clearly a nasty piece of work who abused his wife and she was terrified of him. The defence was horrible, casting all sorts of aspersions on the victim. But the indictment was for one specific thing and the prosecution didn’t make its case. So he walked. Dreadful stuff and I felt awful for the wife.
Following on from buzz said, a friend who has a business recently did jury service and I think he said that he could claim something like £65 a day in soz (not soz) money for loss of earnings
And also, how clever of you to remember, clubbers
I was foreman on a murder one when I was at uni. We sent him down.
Then I was on another one when I was a trainee - and one side was represented by my own firm. I disclosed the conflict to the court - and the parties and judge agreed it was fine for me to continue. It was very interesting. Cant recall all the details but it was a civil law dispute betwen some political groups - trades unionist and I think some right wing sorts - all working within the same large national organisation. We had been asked to determine on a key question of fact - as to whether someone had posted a comment which i think was alleged to have been libellous or something. They had obviously been negotiating the question to be put to us and it was along the lines "Did Joe Bloggs Account post X". In the course of the proceedings it became blinding obvious to me - and most of the 11other laypeople on the Jury - that the answer was "Yes, but Joe Bloggs himself didn't post it because the Computers were all in the same staff room and people just routinely left accounts open /used each others and the posting style etc of the key statements were absolutely not by Joe Bloggs". Even though this seemed to have passed all the jurists by. Although I suspected my own MC firm might have done a very smart job in getting the wrong question in front of the jury. And the other non big city firm and judge had missed it. As I ferried notes back and forth to the Judge to sort the mess out Im sure I caught someone form my shop rolling his eyes in frustration.
I had to get them to reword the question to something that made sense which we could answer honestly and fairly and probably made all the proceeds more complex
Let justice be done or the heavens fall...
Also probably explains my ongoing disdain for experts and lawyers and our sacred "justice" system.
Join the discussion