White collar crime and professional jurors

questioner

Hi all,

I'm in the nascent stages of research for a masters thesis tentatively based on the DPP's call for discussion of the issue of professional jurors.

Broadly speaking, the idea can be summarised as follows; Crimes concerning financial fraud/securities etc. are too complex to be within the ken of the ordinary juror, as such a jury should at least contain, or be entirely comprised of, professionals who understand the nature of the instruments involved.

Personally, I'm undecided entirely. on the one hand there are serious failings with contemporary jury trials, composition being one of them.

On the other hand, i dont know will another layer of bureaucracy lend anything to the efficient public adminstration of justice, additionally American jurors seem quite capable of delivering verdicts in complex cases (Enron, worldcom etc. and I'm sure madoff would have been found guilty as well).

It also seems that every time public perception of a certain type of offender reaches a certain threshold that the Minister immediately begins looking for excuses to circumvent the jury trial - Drugs, gangland crime, terrorism etc. - some of these encroachments may have been justified but I'm curious as to why it seems to be the first, last and only option when it comes to dealing with whoever or whatever is currently public enemy number one.

I would be very interested in hearing anyones thoughts on this, particularly from anyone with first hand experience of trialling complex cases before a jury and any difficulties encountered.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0518/1224270596135.html?via=rel

thanks

johnnyskeleton

If the DPP could point to some such trials that were run before a jury and the jury didn't understand, then there might be a good argument. But simply assuming that a jury that acquits is a jury that not understand or worse, not prosecuting at all, is no reason to change the nature of a jury trial. Juries are given a lot of respect in this jurisdiction, and it is assumed that juries will give a fair trial and will follow the directions of the trial judge.

Most criminal charges are one sentence long containing three or four ingredients of the offence. Juries can understand these things. What the DPP is presumably angling at are situations where the facts are so intricate or messy that a jury will not be certain as to what happened, but who is to say that a professional jury will be able to bring a greater degree of certainty. In fact it is the opposite, a professional jury who have experience of the type of transaction in question will often be biased because they will work in that area.

If there was an offence, for example, of barristers failing in their duty to their clients, people would complain if such a trial were heard before a jury composed only of barristers. Why would it be any different for a jury of bankers to try one of their peers? In fact people are complaining at the moment that both solicitor's and barrister's disciplinary tribunals are run by their respective representative bodies and staffed primarily by solicitors and barristers. The legal phrase is nemo iudex in causa sua, you should not be a judge in your own cause.

Further, professional jurors would presumably be paid and so there may be a profit motive for them to bring in a guilty verdict i.e. to get another job in the next jury trial. Any such system would have to have fairly tight safeguards.

Also, discussed here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055913964

detective

I couldn't agree more with johnnyskeleton. If juries are made up of hand picked people then we may as well just have a three judge panel like the special criminal court. this will lead to only one class of people seeing justice and it just wouldn't be fair and transparent.

A jury of one's peers is the single most important aspect of a fair criminal justice system.

whydoibother?

I think that professional jurors could have a massive bias in favour of people in the profession. I'm not saying that they couldn't be objective enough to see blatant fraud, but in a negligence case for example, if they are familiar with the pressures of the profession in question, their attitude could be "I can easily see how it could happen." For example, some professional fails to read a document thoroughly because there's another major project going on in the office, they'll understand the pressure a little too much and even if the juror is very diligent and conscientious in their other profession, the feeling that "it could have been me, human error could strike anyone" may prevail. I think it would take a huge capacity for objectivity to get over this.

Kosseegan

Part of the problem at the moment is that professional people can and do avoid jury service. The result is that juries are composed of non-professionals and the standard of education of juries typically lower than average of the population. Ensuring more professioanls are selected for jury service would help ensure than at least some people on the jury can understand what might be a complex fraud.
At the moment all the defence has to do is to bamboozle the jury. A confused juror will be a juror in doubt. A juror in doubt will give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
A good start would be to level the playing pitch with jury selection. This has been done in England where everybody must do their turn, no ifs and buts.

Reloc8

I presume you're looking at recent English experiences with long running fraud cases OP - one in particular comes to mind which went on for some inordinate amount of time (3 years ?) with a jury.

Of course, sitting judge alone doesn't mean something won't take 14 years mind.

edit : you could also look at some of the very old english stock exchange type trials - 'financial' crimes were tried in front of a jury of commercial people , on the basis that they were best placed to assess what was crook and what was not. Historically they were very tough on the accused. Sentencing was by judge presiding of course. Time period...circa 1750 - 1850 something within that (sorry I don't have time to go dig out the references I'm thinking of).

Bosco boy

Kosseegan wrote: »

Part of the problem at the moment is that professional people can and do avoid jury service. The result is that juries are composed of non-professionals and the standard of education of juries typically lower than average of the population. Ensuring more professioanls are selected for jury service would help ensure than at least some people on the jury can understand what might be a complex fraud.
At the moment all the defence has to do is to bamboozle the jury. A confused juror will be a juror in doubt. A juror in doubt will give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
A good start would be to level the playing pitch with jury selection. This has been done in England where everybody must do their turn, no ifs and buts.

I have to say I think this is rather insulting to people all over the country who have or are currently doing jury duty. Have you a source to back this up?

Brother Psychosis

Kosseegan wrote: »

Part of the problem at the moment is that professional people can and do avoid jury service. The result is that juries are composed of non-professionals and the standard of education of juries typically lower than average of the population. Ensuring more professioanls are selected for jury service would help ensure than at least some people on the jury can understand what might be a complex fraud.
At the moment all the defence has to do is to bamboozle the jury. A confused juror will be a juror in doubt. A juror in doubt will give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

sorry, but thats complete and utter nonsense. jurors aren't inbred hillbillies. they are normal people, picked at random, that are given the facts in a clear manner and told the essential elements of the law and use their common sense to get a decision. even if every juror in the country had no education, the system would still work, but saying they don't is insulting at least half(?) of the country! saying you have to bamboozle a jury is not only insulting to anyone who has ever been on a jury, but also makes light of the hard work put in bu thousands of legal professionals that have defended cases

Kosseegan

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

sorry, but thats complete and utter nonsense. jurors aren't inbred hillbillies. they are normal people, picked at random, that are given the facts in a clear manner and told the essential elements of the law and use their common sense to get a decision. even if every juror in the country had no education, the system would still work, but saying they don't is insulting at least half(?) of the country! saying you have to bamboozle a jury is not only insulting to anyone who has ever been on a jury, but also makes light of the hard work put in bu thousands of legal professionals that have defended cases

You are reading too many law books. Have you ever been involved imn a jury trial. have your ever even been selected for jury service. The professionals and senior managers write in and get excused. When the jury panel is called the defence can challenge without cause up to seven jurors. The better dressed are eliminanted by this means. The resulting jury is most likely devoid of any professional person. If every juror had no education, how would they read the documents put in evidence that are given to jurors? How would they have the life experience to work out the motives of a dishonest professional? Juries are overwhelmingly drawn from the working classes. All it takes is a day in the CCJ to see that. Lenghty trials before juries are very unfair. Nobody should have to spend months on a jury. Why should a persons life be severely disrupted in the carrying out of a civic duty?

From (2008) 18(2) ICLJ 34: Article: The Representative and Impartial Jury in the Criminal Trial: An Achievable Reality in Ireland Today? : James M Jeffers*

"these exemptions significantly reduce the pool of persons eligible to serve on juries. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, as a result, juries are composed mainly of young people, the unemployed and the lower social classes. Professionals and the well-educated are unlikely to serve on juries as virtually all categories of professionals are either ineligible or excusable as of a right."

"peremptory challenges have been used to exclude members of minority racial groupings from the jury. It seems that efforts have also been made to exclude persons of certain social classes or occupations based on appearances and dress styles."

Bosco boy

All walks of life get out of jury duty when they really want to, I know many professionals who relish the prospect of being on a jury and are disappointed when not picked. I note that no source was provided and as someone who had given evidence in the CCC and lower courts I noticed decent intelligent jurors but there are people around the courts who may see them as lesser! 5 years ago the brightest and the best in this country were seanie fitz and David drum in the banking sector, I don't want so called "professionals" from a sector who have screwed this country on juries into White collar crime. Give me the decent man or woman on the street who hurting as a result of this corruption and I have every faith in them! They won't need €150 million and 14 years to decide either!

murrayp4

In complex cases such as these there is a duty/burden upon the counsel for both sides to put forward a case in such a manner that the jury understands the issues involved notwithstanding the jury's lack of expertise in the area.
It is also incumbent upon the trial judge to ensure that everything that goes on in court has been explained and clearly understood by the jury. This would also apply to the jury's foreperson.

Reloc8

Kosseegan wrote: »

You are reading too many law books.
Have you ever been involved imn a jury trial.

Yes, many.

Kosseegan wrote: »

have your ever even been selected for jury service. The professionals and senior managers write in and get excused.

Bollox

Kosseegan wrote: »

When the jury panel is called the defence can challenge without cause up to seven jurors.

As can the prosecution.

Kosseegan wrote: »

The better dressed are eliminanted by this means. The resulting jury is most likely devoid of any professional person.

Bollox.

Kosseegan wrote: »

Juries are overwhelmingly drawn from the working classes.

Bollox.

Kosseegan wrote: »

All it takes is a day in the CCJ to see that. Lenghty trials before juries are very unfair.

Absolute total bollox.

Kosseegan wrote: »

Nobody should have to spend months on a jury

Exceptinally rare that that would happen.


btw...your post (not you of course) = bollox.

DUB777

Reloc8 wrote: »

Yes, many.



Bollox




As can the prosecution.



Bollox.



Bollox.




Absolute total bollox.




Exceptinally rare that that would happen.


btw...your post (not you of course) = bollox.

Lol, how many infractions did you receive for that statement?? As true and all as it is. Your man doesn't seem to have a clue.

Reloc8

None yet but its early days (and had to be said)

(nb I'm attacking the post not the poster)

DUB777

Ive gotten infractions for less man, I'd be very surprised if you didnt get one for each b0110x they way they dish them out here.

Kosseegan

murrayp4 wrote: »

In complex cases such as these there is a duty/burden upon the counsel for both sides to put forward a case in such a manner that the jury understands the issues involved notwithstanding the jury's lack of expertise in the area.
It is also incumbent upon the trial judge to ensure that everything that goes on in court has been explained and clearly understood by the jury. This would also apply to the jury's foreperson.

The foreperson has no role other than to announce the verdict. He has no role in explaining evidence to his fellow jurors. He can contribute to deliberations in the sdame way as any juror based on his own life experiences. I have seen judges charge juries in a manner that It would be impossible for any non legally trained person to follow. No one knows if a jury understands what has been put to them. There is no way of checking.
Defence counsel are under no duty to ensure a jury understands the issues. They are there to offer the jury a view of the evidence and to raise doubt about the guilt of the defendant arising out of it. If the jury do not understand the evidence and have a doubt as a result so much the better.

questioner

Thanks for the replies, I have been lurking but havent had a chance to reply until now, excuse any typos I havent had a chance to read it through properly

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If the DPP could point to some such trials that were run before a jury and the jury didn't understand, then there might be a good argument.

In fact it is the opposite, a professional jury who have experience of the type of transaction in question will often be biased because they will work in that area.

If there was an offence, for example, of barristers failing in their duty to their clients, people would complain if such a trial were heard before a jury composed only of barristers. Why would it be any different for a jury of bankers to try one of their peers? In fact people are complaining at the moment that both solicitor's and barrister's disciplinary tribunals are run by their respective representative bodies and staffed primarily by solicitors and barristers. The legal phrase is nemo iudex in causa sua, you should not be a judge in your own cause.

Further, professional jurors would presumably be paid and so there may be a profit motive for them to bring in a guilty verdict i.e. to get another job in the next jury trial. Any such system would have to have fairly tight safeguards.

Also, discussed here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055913964

I agree that it would be helpful if the DPP could illustrate his point but I feel that there are probably a lot of cases where the jury does not understand the evidence before them, take conflicting evidence regarding the sanity of the accused - is it reasonable to expect the man on the street to differentiate between terminologically laden conflicting evidence from psychiatrists who have the benfit of 4 years third level, four years postgrad and countless hours of professional experience? A few years back our jurisprudence lecturer gave us an article discussing exit poll type research on juries which showed some jurors had not even understood the verdict they had given let alone the evidence before them. - reference to follow, if I can find it.


Whilst I accept both your points regarding the impartiality/motives of ones peers, taken together they are mutually contradictory - a jury cannot have one eye on the prize, so to speak and the other on protecting one of their own. Even if this were the case then one would have meliorative effect amounting to the negation of the other.

I think your points speak volumes to the growing balkanisation of our society - both in professional and social terms. We are beginning to lose all faith in the existence of impartiality let alone its application in the criminal concept.I think also that there are countless members of the professions who are appalled by the conduct of certain members who have damaged the profession irreparably - additionally I am reasonably confident they would relish any prospect of restoring a modicum of repectability to the public perception of their profession.

Take Michael Lynn for a particularly egregious example, perhaps I'm naive but I doubt that many solicitors would consider him "one of their own". Iimagine there are countless professionals in the same situation in the financial sector.

detective wrote: »

I couldn't agree more with johnnyskeleton. If juries are made up of hand picked people then we may as well just have a three judge panel like the special criminal court. this will lead to only one class of people seeing justice and it just wouldn't be fair and transparent.

A jury of one's peers is the single most important aspect of a fair criminal justice system.

What do you mean by one class of people and could you clarify what you understand "peers" to be?

whydoibother? wrote: »

I think that professional jurors could have a massive bias in favour of people in the profession. I'm not saying that they couldn't be objective enough to see blatant fraud, but in a negligence case for example, if they are familiar with the pressures of the profession in question, their attitude could be "I can easily see how it could happen." For example, some professional fails to read a document thoroughly because there's another major project going on in the office, they'll understand the pressure a little too much and even if the juror is very diligent and conscientious in their other profession, the feeling that "it could have been me, human error could strike anyone" may prevail. I think it would take a huge capacity for objectivity to get over this.

I think this is hugely germane to the issue, however I dont feel that it is in gigantic contrast to the myriad of prejudices that the prosecution/defence play to in any event.

Kosseegan wrote: »

Part of the problem at the moment is that professional people can and do avoid jury service. The result is that juries are composed of non-professionals and the standard of education of juries typically lower than average of the population. Ensuring more professioanls are selected for jury service would help ensure than at least some people on the jury can understand what might be a complex fraud.
At the moment all the defence has to do is to bamboozle the jury. A confused juror will be a juror in doubt. A juror in doubt will give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
A good start would be to level the playing pitch with jury selection. This has been done in England where everybody must do their turn, no ifs and buts.

Your referring to the Auld report which identified most of the issues you mention, however the report also said that there was little empirical research to support the popular perceptions you mention and what research there was would support the contention that there was sufficient diversity in jury composition.


however, the LRC consultation paper on juries found that the same perception existed in Ireland but that it could , at least partially, be supported by statistics.

"

For example, the Director of
Public Prosecutions has expressed concern that ―[a]s a result of the wide
variety of exemptions from jury service which are given to various professions

and occupations and in practice much of the public service‖ these groups in

society may be under-represented on juries.16 These comments17 appear to be
supported by figures made available by the Courts Service and broadcast in
2008,18 which indicated that, out of a total of 41,500 persons who were
summoned for jury service in Dublin in 2007, over 22,000 were excused from
service under the 1976 Act. Of these, 15,844 people were disqualified from jury
service because of their job, on health grounds or due to their age.19 A further
7,018 were excused under the general discretionary power to do so in section 9
of the 1976 Act. During one specific week when 322 people were excused, 100

people said they could not attend because of work, 99 people said they were
primary carers and 84 said they were travelling.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/LRC%20JuriesCP%20full.pdf

not the most academic of resources but referenced by the LRC ..

http://elaine.ie/2009/06/30/problems-with-our-attitude-to-jury-service/

Reloc8 wrote: »

I presume you're looking at recent English experiences with long running fraud cases OP - one in particular comes to mind which went on for some inordinate amount of time (3 years ?) with a jury.

Of course, sitting judge alone doesn't mean something won't take 14 years mind.

edit : you could also look at some of the very old english stock exchange type trials - 'financial' crimes were tried in front of a jury of commercial people , on the basis that they were best placed to assess what was crook and what was not. Historically they were very tough on the accused. Sentencing was by judge presiding of course. Time period...circa 1750 - 1850 something within that (sorry I don't have time to go dig out the references I'm thinking of).

thanks Reloc8, Ill check that out - I remember seeing somewhere that there had been professional type juries before but that the concept had been struck from the legislation sometime in the last century.

Bosco boy wrote: »

I have to say I think this is rather insulting to people all over the country who have or are currently doing jury duty. Have you a source to back this up?

See lrc consultation paper

Bosco boy wrote: »

I don't want so called "professionals" from a sector who have screwed this country on juries into White collar crime. Give me the decent man or woman on the street who hurting as a result of this corruption and I have every faith in them! They won't need €150 million and 14 years to decide either!

true, but will they hear the evidence in an unbiased and impartial manner

murrayp4 wrote: »

In complex cases such as these there is a duty/burden upon the counsel for both sides to put forward a case in such a manner that the jury understands the issues involved notwithstanding the jury's lack of expertise in the area.
It is also incumbent upon the trial judge to ensure that everything that goes on in court has been explained and clearly understood by the jury. This would also apply to the jury's foreperson.

In adversarial proceedings I'm unsure as to the primacy of counsels role, is it to assist the court or the client? if the former then I feel the latter is probably truer in practice.

Reloc8 wrote: »

bollox.

most unparliamentary language, former deputy Gogarty is that you;)

DUB777 wrote: »

Your man doesn't seem to have a clue.

ok, thanks for that.

Brother Psychosis

Kosseegan wrote: »

You are reading too many law books. Have you ever been involved imn a jury trial.

yes i have, several times and most of your propositions here show that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the jury system. the challenges are used, from my experience, to ensure people with any predetermined bias won't take part and give the trial the fairest chance. furthermore, it is only in rare circumstances that a jury trial will go on for more than two weeks, the large majority of jury trials are over within two or three days (particularly in circuit criminal court)

the whole point of juries is that the case has to be put in the clearest way possible to people with no legal training so that people can't have preconceptions about the law and they will hear all the evidence before making any decisions. professional jurors would eventually get to know the law and would make assumptions and premature decisions based on their limited knowledge.

which is exactly what you're doing, by suggesting jurors are challenged on the basis of their dress or status in society. if this were true, the amount of appeals would be astronomical. it is a fair system and is central to the legal process in this country. professional jurors would undermine the entire legal system and prejudice a number of people, in both civil and criminal cases. you cant make assumptions about the entire jury system on a limited experience of juries in the CCJ

Reloc8

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

the challenges are used, from my experience, to ensure people with any predetermined bias won't take part and give the trial the fairest chance....

which is exactly what you're doing, by suggesting jurors are challenged on the basis of their dress or status in society[/B

Well, all that is known about a juror is their appearance in court, address, name and sometimes (say 50% of the time) their occupation (which may not be current).

So challenges are raised on that basis only, excepting a challenge for cause where there is indeed knowledge that a particular juror should not serve by reason of bias/knowledge of the parties (such a challenge doesn't count against the seven allowed as of right).

The point is that this does not effect the socio-economic (for want of a better word) make-up of the jury to a statistically significant degree.

Reloc8

questioner wrote: »

In adversarial proceedings I'm unsure as to the primacy of counsels role, is it to assist the court or the client? if the former then I feel the latter is probably truer in practice.

Counsel's duty is to their client, subject to a coterminous and equally important duty not to mislead the court (that is judge and jury) on the facts or law.

Brother Psychosis

Reloc8 wrote: »

Well, all that is known about a juror is their appearance in court, address, name and sometimes (say 50% of the time) their occupation (which may not be current)..

i have seen, on the odd occasion, people excluded on the basis of their profession, for example, a shopkeeper challenged in a burglary case. personally, i don't see the point but it seems to happen!

Reloc8

Sure - happens all the time. Challenges against jurors in an irish case are based for all practical purposes on speculation (he's an x so he won't like the idea of y, she's a woman so she'll be sympathetic to this position and unsympathetic to another, he's old so he'll think like this).

There's absolutely no science to it.

It is amusing when you see a person come in dressed up and carrying a copy of the Irish Times prominently who has been advised that this is how you 'get out of' sitting on a jury and who ends up selected and not challenged. They're a bit 'wtf ! why arn't you challenging me !'.

Kosseegan

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

yes i have, several times and most of your propositions here show that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the jury system. the challenges are used, from my experience, to ensure people with any predetermined bias won't take part and give the trial the fairest chance. furthermore, it is only in rare circumstances that a jury trial will go on for more than two weeks, the large majority of jury trials are over within two or three days (particularly in circuit criminal court)

the whole point of juries is that the case has to be put in the clearest way possible to people with no legal training so that people can't have preconceptions about the law and they will hear all the evidence before making any decisions. professional jurors would eventually get to know the law and would make assumptions and premature decisions based on their limited knowledge.

which is exactly what you're doing, by suggesting jurors are challenged on the basis of their dress or status in society. if this were true, the amount of appeals would be astronomical. it is a fair system and is central to the legal process in this country. professional jurors would undermine the entire legal system and prejudice a number of people, in both civil and criminal cases. you cant make assumptions about the entire jury system on a limited experience of juries in the CCJ

For someone who appears to be a Kings Inns student i wonder what part you have played in jury trials. It is not grounds for appeal that well dressed jurors were challenged without cause. Both sides will endeavour to use the challenges without cause to get a jury profile they feel will be more easily persuaded to their side.

People with potential pre-determined bias would be challenged with cause not without cause.

I never said jury trials frequently go on for months. Most last no more than a few days. Fraud trials can take much longer, where there is a long paper trail and lengthy cross examination of expert witnesses.

Bosco boy

Maybe such fraud cases should be heard in the special criminal court, if juries are too thick to hear them in this country.

Brother Psychosis

Kosseegan wrote: »

For someone who appears to be a Kings Inns student i wonder what part you have played in jury trials. It is not grounds for appeal that well dressed jurors were challenged without cause.

firstly, i'm not in KI and i have been in lots of jury trials. I. and i didnt say that well dressed jurors is a ground for appeal, my point was that excluding so called members of the 'upper class' could result in an appeal as it would be viewed as trying to unfairly influence the make up of a jury. also, challenging jurors without cause is not a ground of appeal

Reloc8

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

firstly, i'm not in KI and i have been in lots of jury trials. I. and i didnt say that well dressed jurors is a ground for appeal, my point was that excluding so called members of the 'upper class' could result in an appeal as it would be viewed as trying to unfairly influence the make up of a jury. also, challenging jurors without cause is not a ground of appeal

Can't really reconcile the bits in bold.

Challenging 'the upper classes' as part of the seven challenges given to each party could never ground an appeal.

And yes challenging jurors without call is not a ground of appeal...

questioner

Reloc8 wrote: »

Sure - happens all the time. Challenges against jurors in an irish case are based for all practical purposes on speculation (he's an x so he won't like the idea of y, she's a woman so she'll be sympathetic to this position and unsympathetic to another, he's old so he'll think like this).

There's absolutely no science to it.
.

there may be no science to it in ireland yet but there is an entire industry in america concerning jury selection, shadow jurors and mock trials.

i think that this would pose a huge problem where the resources of the state were in distant second to the resources of the accused(s).

questioner

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

. 1. professional jurors would eventually get to know the law and would make assumptions and premature decisions based on their limited knowledge.

which is exactly what you're doing, by suggesting jurors are challenged on the basis of their dress or status in society. if this were true, the amount of appeals would be astronomical. it is a fair system and is central to the legal process in this country. 2 .professional jurors would undermine the entire legal system and prejudice a number of people, in both civil and criminal cases. you cant make assumptions about the entire jury system on a limited experience of juries in the CCJ

1. as opposed to jurors with no legal training who make decisions based on their far limited understanding of the law?

2. prejudice who? poor people or rich people? check out the demographics of the prison population and you'll find that theres already plenty of prejudice against the poor.

what impact would professional jurors have on defamation cases? the last judgement i can think of that a jury handed down in a defamation trial was laughable.

murrayp4

Kosseegan wrote: »

The foreperson has no role other than to announce the verdict. He has no role in explaining evidence to his fellow jurors. He can contribute to deliberations in the sdame way as any juror based on his own life experiences.

Often if the jury does not understand something or would like something to be clarified, the foreperson can ask on behalf of the jury

questioner

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

y furthermore, it is only in rare circumstances that a jury trial will go on for more than two weeks, the large majority of jury trials are over within two or three days (particularly in circuit criminal court)

yes of course, because of the fundamental simplicity of certain criminal transgressions. the problem remains that our system is just not fundamentally equipped to deal with complex frauds, nor is the Uk but they are at least trying to deal with it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/blue-arrow-trial-labelled-pounds-40m-disaster-1536262.html

or the jubilee line case

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article434657.ece

as a matter of fact our system is not even equipped to deal with a majority of defendants exercising their right to a trial, what percentage of criminal cases actually make it to trial? is it around 2%?

Personally I think juries safeguard nothing, plenty of miscarriages of justice with juries (guildford, maguire, birmingham 6.)

Kosseegan

murrayp4 wrote: »

Often if the jury does not understand something or would like something to be clarified, the foreperson can ask on behalf of the jury

The entire jury have to be there when the explanation is given. The foreperson does not go back with an explanation and it is only convention that the foreperson makes the request.

murrayp4

Kosseegan wrote: »

The entire jury have to be there when the explanation is given. The foreperson does not go back with an explanation and it is only convention that the foreperson makes the request.

I'm not suggesting the foreperson asks singularly and reports back to the jury. He/she is charged with the responsibility to ask, on behalf of the jury, to have something explained to the jury.