Juries

[buddy]

Is there a case for having at least one professional juror in major crime trials?
I have been a juror on two occasions, and tbh I struggled at times.
I understand the reasons that the law requires  jurors to be selected from the general population, but most are baffled by court jargon
In Jeremy's case two were not convinced of guilt. The jury foreman was no more qualified than any other member to judge.
I am sure that many juries have been swayed for one reason or another.
The amount of people who have subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing after a jury trial means that the system is flawed.
An innocent man/woman could be convicted because the jury take a dislike for them.
I am sure people on here have had a instant dislike for someone even though they have done them no harm, it's human nature.
By all accounts Jeremy appeared brash, and cocky which didn't help him at all,but that could just mean he was confident nothing more nothing less.

[Jane]

Is there a case for having at least one professional juror in major crime trials?
I have been a juror on two occasions, and tbh I struggled at times.
I understand the reasons that the law requires  jurors to be selected from the general population, but most are baffled by court jargon
In Jeremy's case two were not convinced of guilt. The jury foreman was no more qualified than any other member to judge.
I am sure that many juries have been swayed for one reason or another.
The amount of people who have subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing after a jury trial means that the system is flawed.
An innocent man/woman could be convicted because the jury take a dislike for them.
I am sure people on here have had a instant dislike for someone even though they have done them no harm, it's human nature.
By all accounts Jeremy appeared brash, and cocky which didn't help him at all,but that could just mean he was confident nothing more nothing less.

I concur with all you say but I suspect that at the bottom of it lays the desire for a system that is fail safe and in which there is no chance of mistakes being made. Whilst the world is made up of diverse personalities, it ain't gonna happen.

[buddy]

I concur with all you say but I suspect that at the bottom of it lays the desire for a system that is fail safe and in which there is no chance of mistakes being made. Whilst the world is made up of diverse personalities, it ain't gonna happen.

I agree that no system is fail safe, but it would reduce the risk of unsafe convictions.

[guest154]

I agree that no system is fail safe, but it would reduce the risk of unsafe convictions.

I'd worry that an expert would have such strong views that it would cause the weaker willed members of the jury to fall in line, plus calls of corruption would be all the more present if you have an expert, who it could be argued was connected to the police or the prosecution in some remote way, even if there is nothing fishy about it, the possibility doesn't thrill me.

I do believe in the jury system, particularly in this country and I do believe it is the best way to get a verdict. However it is only as strong as its appeals process.

[Caroline]

I agree that no system is fail safe, but it would reduce the risk of unsafe convictions.

Would it really? If you have a 'professional juror' the other 11 will simply follow his/her lead, in which case they will be influenced by someone they feel knows more about the procedures. The only way that MIGHT work is if the whole of the jury were 'professional' - but that's a whole new can of worms.

[guest154]

Would it really? If you have a 'professional juror' the other 11 will simply follow his/her lead, in which case they will be influenced by someone they feel knows more about the procedures. The only way that MIGHT work is if the whole of the jury were 'professional' - but that's a whole new can of worms.

Snap! 

[Jane]

Would it really? If you have a 'professional juror' the other 11 will simply follow his/her lead, in which case they will be influenced by someone they feel knows more about the procedures. The only way that MIGHT work is if the whole of the jury were 'professional' - but that's a whole new can of worms.

I agree, Caroline. I'm not convinced that it would be possible for the "professional" to convince the others of their 100% neutrality and an entirely "professional" jury would, as you say, bring it's own problems.

[Adam]

The experts are the people that testify. In this case, pathologists, police, blood experts etc. Judges can ask questions to people testifying as well if things are complicated.

The prosecution certainly want to make their evidence as clear as possible. A juror who is confused is more likely to get reasonable doubt. The defence will try to muddy the waters and look for a technicality.

It's doubtful that an expert can be obtained for all aspects of a murder trial. A senior policeman will be considered biased, and there are not enough criminologists to go around.

[Adam]

People complain that fraud cases are extremely complicated and long. But doubt the jury system should or will be changed.

[buddy]

Would it really? If you have a 'professional juror' the other 11 will simply follow his/her lead, in which case they will be influenced by someone they feel knows more about the procedures. The only way that MIGHT work is if the whole of the jury were 'professional' - but that's a whole new can of worms.

Not really Caroline. People have their own minds, but it would help.

[buddy]

The guidance the jury had was from judge Drake. Hardly a good thing.

[David1819]

I don't like the idea that you can have split verdicts in this country, The decision should be unanimous like in the US.

I don't believe it was good idea for the Judge in Bamber's trial to allow a split verdict for such a serious crime he was accused of. He should have declared a mistrial and have a new trial. some people in the USA have had three or more trials because the Juries at the first two were split

[Jane]

I don't like the idea that you can have split verdicts in this country, The decision should be unanimous like in the US.

I don't believe it was good idea for the Judge in Bamber's trial to allow a split verdict for such a serious crime he was accused of. He should have declared a mistrial and have a new trial. some people in the USA have had three or more trials because the Juries at the first two were split

So how many retrials -and at what cost- would be allowed in the case of several split verdicts and at what point is a potentially guilty person allowed to walk OR a potentially innocent person incarcerated.

[buddy]

So how many retrials -and at what cost- would be allowed in the case of several split verdicts and at what point is a potentially guilty person allowed to walk OR a potentially innocent person incarcerated.

Who cares about the costs, if an innocent man is going to spend his whole life in prison.
How much has been spent on the Hillsborough incident for example.

[lookout]

Did Judge Drake tell the jury in his closing speech that it was beyond reasonable doubt ?