You`re on a jury. Would you do background research?

Tha Gopher

re the Cork drug case a quick google comes up with old articles relating to the fact one of the guys was on the run having skipped his murder parole licence. If on a jury would you Google a name to aid you in your decision? All highly illegal of course as any consideration is meant to be on what is heard in the court only (excluding, of course, anything that members of the public may roar out in the gallery)

Have to admit I would myself. In fact I cant imagine anyone not doing it. Therefore should a defendants name not be revealed until after a trial has concluded?

Overheal

You should not!

The whole idea of the Jury is that they make their verdict based only on the evidence submitted in a court of law - hell even if they seem something in court and the judge orders them to disavow that evidence, they can not make their decision based on that piece of evidence. ie. if something is stricken from the record.

If you get caught doing your own investigation it could be prison time for you.

challengemaster

I'm on a jury? F**k! Letter must be late coming...

Steve_o

Yea you can only make a verdict based on evidence given, anything outside that is not supposed to be used!

Karoma

Overheal wrote: »

You should not!
...

Steve_o wrote: »

Yea you can only make a verdict based on evidence given, anything outside that is not supposed to be used!

Okay, now answer the original post.
I wouldn't. It'd be tough to resist a quick google, but I wouldn't do it. Too much mindf*ck & unethical.
(I might also do my homework after the case and become another Dexter, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)

TequilaMockingBird

I can't see many people not doing it tbh.

kowloon

Is it true that you're not even allowed to see the transcript of the trial you're in? That could be a disaster as you're relying on your own notes or memory.

Overheal

Karoma wrote: »

Okay, now answer the original post.
I wouldn't. It'd be tough to resist a quick google, but I wouldn't do it. Too much mindf*ck & unethical.
(I might also do my homework after the case and become another Dexter, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)

touché sir.

Im sure it would be tempting and im sure it tempts a lot of jurors. but iirc arent jurors confined to special accomodations during the litigation process? meaning they wouldnt have the opportunity.

Id probably have my moments of weakness but would like to think id have the resolve not to.

loismustdie

is it not true that you only find out the case when the time comes so unless you know up upcoming cases - prob just the big ones and you know when and where they are beforehand you'l be in isolation afterwards, am i right?

UnitedIrishman

Overheal wrote: »

touché sir.

Im sure it would be tempting and im sure it tempts a lot of jurors. but iirc arent jurors confined to special accomodations during the litigation process? meaning they wouldnt have the opportunity.

Id probably have my moments of weakness but would like to think id have the resolve not to.

Yeah true. Unless you had a good knowledge of the courts and have downloaded upcoming trials for the dates you're in on duty, then you won't exactly have a great idea of who is in front of you. Then if it lasts into multiple days you're gonna be in accomodation.

Of course its a hypothetical question, but not something I'd really go for. Take someone on their merit I say. You're trying someone for the crime their in on. Plus you can pretty much tell a scumbag from a mile away so..

seamus

kowloon wrote: »

Is it true that you're not even allowed to see the transcript of the trial you're in? That could be a disaster as you're relying on your own notes or memory.

I don't think that's true. I've often heard of juries requesting a transcript of the trial during deliberations.

A lot of the deliberation time is spent debating and discussing the relevant points in the case. If me and you disagree over a point and our notes say different things, then the only way to resolve it is to get a transcript of the trial.

The deliberation also serves as something of a corrective mechanism in the case that someone has gone and done external research - if I'm saying that someone is guilty based on stuff I've read elsewhere, then I've clearly broken the law.

The temptation would be big though - the opportunity to send a scumbag down whether or not he's guilty of this particular crime.

but iirc arent jurors confined to special accomodations during the litigation process? meaning they wouldnt have the opportunity.

Only during deliberations afaik. While the trial is going on, the jurors go home every evening and are instructed not to read newspapers or watch the news - although the media can only report on the facts of the case, they often put their own subtle spin on it.

Steve_o

Karoma wrote: »

Okay, now answer the original post.
I wouldn't. It'd be tough to resist a quick google, but I wouldn't do it. Too much mindf*ck & unethical.
(I might also do my homework after the case and become another Dexter, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)

Very well... I would be very very tempted but I don't think I would tbh, if caught could that be considered perverting the course of justice??

Jesus Wept

challengemaster wrote: »

I'm on a jury? F**k! Letter must be late coming...

lol.

You see the trick is to say you’re prejudiced against ALL races.

whiskeyman

seamus wrote: »

Only during deliberations afaik. While the trial is going on, the jurors go home every evening and are instructed not to read newspapers or watch the news - although the media can only report on the facts of the case, they often put their own subtle spin on it.

Yup - was a juror in a serious case in the central criminal court a few months back. We went home each evening with the judge giving us a warning about the media and other things. Only when deliberating are you by yourselves, but you could still check things if you really wanted to with the technology these days.

We knew the names of the victim and accused, and some of the jurors spoke of searching the internet for anything about them... even Bebos or Facebook sites. I was tempted, but didn't bother. I had more than enough evidence to make my decision.

kevmy

Jurors are only put up in accommodation for the deliberations usually, I think there have been special cases when they have been put up during the trial.

On a related note, wasn't the original Catherine Nevin trial halted because someone heard a member of the jury discussing it with someone.

loyatemu

hang 'em all and let God sort 'em out!

nobodythere

Ah ya would.......

Come on, it's a jury, burn the witch yar yar yar! Nobody seen that episode of peep show where jez is on the jury?

dee8839

I'm not and never will be eligible for jury duty afaik, unfortunately, but I'd love to do it for a good trial!! I don't think I'd check the net for info on the accused, because I'm very interested in the whole process of a jury's role and wouldn't be willing to compromise the legal process as it is meant to be. Having said that, I'd so the majority of jurors must disregard the direction to not look at the media and newspapers about the case they are assigned to when they go home in the evening. Human nature must prevail for a lot of them. Its like anything, curiosity just gets the better of most!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

loyatemu wrote: »

hang US all and let God sort 'em out!

Let he who has not sinned...

As regards the original question: guilt by reputation..?!! Sure! Why not! What do we need a criminal justice system for anyway..?!

beerbaron

dee8839 wrote: »

I'm not and never will be eligible for jury duty

Convicted Felon ?

dee8839

beerbaron wrote: »

Convicted Felon ?

I've said too much......:eek:

Ste05

I was a juror on a Pedophile case a while back and we were allowed to go home every night during the trial, there was a media black-out on the case so we didn't really have to worry about the Press, but the judge warned us each night just the same incase some Paper broke his direction, but I never Googled the guy and neither did any of the other jurors AFAIK (TBH it never even occurred to me). We deliberated for 3 days and were put up in a Hotel each night but they took our phones off us when we were deliberating, I can't remember exactly but IIRC we also didn't have our phones in the Hotel either, but were allowed to make phone calls (I could be wrong about this point we may have got our phones back, I can't remember exactly).

So once you're deliberating there really isn't an easy way to do any external research, not that anyone should anyway. And unless you do it in the toilet (or hotel room) there's always another juror beside you.

daveharnett

Ho, hum. I would yeah. I'd try and put more weight on what I saw in court, but I can't say that I wouldn't be swayed by the accused having a string of previous similar convictions.

Question; It is my understanding that people with a knowledge of the law (ie. anyone who has studied a law module in college) are ineligible for jury duty. Is this true, and why?

ozt9vdujny3srf

Would you be allowed access to the computer during the trial? hardly, and epecially unsupervised.

Its in the interests of the court and the jury for them to be cut off from the outside world.

daveharnett

Felicity Disgusting Footwear wrote: »

Its in the interests of the court and the jury for them to be cut off from the outside world.

It would be best, to be sure. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't actually happen though.

not yet

Without a doubt........That fcuker done 16 years for murder, so is only getting whats coming to him

Big cats and spots come to mind.

Ste05

daveharnett wrote: »

Question; It is my understanding that people with a knowledge of the law (ie. anyone who has studied a law module in college) are ineligible for jury duty. Is this true, and why?

No, but Solicitors and Barristers are ineligible, but having a Law degree doesn't exempt you, I have one and when I was on a Jury I was doing my Solicitor entrance exams at the time and I wasn't exempt)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

daveharnett wrote: »

Ho, hum. I would yeah. I'd try and put more weight on what I saw in court, but I can't say that I wouldn't be swayed by the accused having a string of previous similar convictions.

....then why bother? Why not just resign yourself as you're incapable of performing the task?