Jury Verdicts

Hagar

In the case where a jury is not unanimous, would a dissenting juror who later expressed his views be considered as fair game for litigation?
If not, why would people expressing the same reservations be be seen as fair game for litigation?

Rebeller

Hagar wrote:

In the case where a jury is not unanimous, would a dissenting juror who later expressed his views be considered as fair game for litigation?
If not, why would people expressing the same reservations be be seen as fair game for litigation?

By "litigation" do you mean contempt of court proceedings?

Once the accused party has been convicted and sentenced I would not see any difficulty in a dissenting juror publishing an account of the trial (provided the trial judge did not give any specific direction to not discuss the deliberations once the trial had concluded)

Hagar

I was thinking about libel really, something on the lines of "I know he was acquited but I think he's guilty of the offence because blah blah"

seamus

There's a certain amount of sanctity in the court room. Things said by solicitors, witnesses, victims and jurors are protected by law and can't be used against the person who said it. A good example of this was the Wayne Donoghue case, where the boy's mother shouted things at him as he was taken down.

Outside of a courtroom context, these would have been libel.

Think about how difficult it would be for a solicitor to say "I will prove that the defendant is guilty", if everything he said was fair game for libel when the defendant was found not guilty.

Outside of the courtroom, if that same juror was to say "He's a lying, guilty bastard", then roll on the solicitors.

Jo King

Jurors are not supposed to discuss their deliberations even after the case has concluded. The reason is that there is a presumption of finality about a jury trial. If people could learn of the jury's deliberations there could be endless re-opening of cases. The only grounds of appeal are that evidence was witheld from a jury or that proper directions were not given or that the jury heard or saw something which they should not have.The deliberations in the jury room are covered by privilege. In any case even if somebody learned that something had been said against them in a jury room they would be unable to produce a witness to give evidence of hearing them say the impugned words because such a witness could only be another juror.

Orchard Rebel

seamus wrote:

There's a certain amount of sanctity in the court room. Things said by solicitors, witnesses, victims and jurors are protected by law and can't be used against the person who said it.

Not if they have perjured themselves in doing so.

Courtrooms see claims and counterclaims made on a daily basis, it's part and parcel of an adversarial court system.

Having said that, the courtroom is not the only place where allegations made can be subject to privilege. TD's speeches in Dáil Eireann also have immunity from legal sanction in this respect.

A good example of this was the Wayne Donoghue case, where the boy's mother shouted things at him as he was taken down.

Outside of a courtroom context, these would have been libel.

Slander rather than libel I think.

sh_o

Rebeller wrote:

By "litigation" do you mean contempt of court proceedings?

Once the accused party has been convicted and sentenced I would not see any difficulty in a dissenting juror publishing an account of the trial (provided the trial judge did not give any specific direction to not discuss the deliberations once the trial had concluded)

Jurors should not discuss the case with any person other than members of the jury. It is contempt of court punishable by fine and or imprisonment to repeat any statements made in the jury room. source