Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

jury question

  • 10-12-2011 6:09pm
    #1
    ANSI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭


    Reading this i wondered if juries in Ireland can take notes or ask questions of the judge


Comments

  • #2
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    The is no bar on taking notes, I have seen juries ask questions, usually to clarify a point of law. Its rare and would usually be in the form of a written question when they are deciding on their verdict. Don't think any judge or lawyers would like to have a juror acting as a lawyer or investigator.


  • #3
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    That article proves why juries should be given what in the USA is called the CSI warning. It's really simple hear all the evidence if you believe on that evidence guilty beyond a reasonable doubt you convict otherwise you don't. There is much in a trial that can't be admitted for many reasons. In relation to the firing of the gun, say it was examined but there was a problem with the way it was tested, then there is no way of proving it or disproving it. The police office who found it could not give opinion evidence. Opinion evidence can only be given by an expert.

    The writer strikes me as a want to be lawyer or police officer.


  • #4
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,549 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    The jury can ask for the judge's note or sometimes the transcript of evidence to be read back to them. They can also ask to inspect an exhibit. I think they can also request to visit the locus in quo, although I don't think I've ever heard of that being done. They can also ask for clarification on the law, although typically it would be to restate what the law is rather than how they should view how the law relates to the facts.

    They can't however ask for evidence to be recalled or other evidence to be given. So if there is some evidence that they would like to have heard but haven't heard, they can draw inferences in favour of the accused (but not against him/her) on the basis of that absence.

    I don't agree with the idea of "the CSI warning" i.e. telling them that they do not need to have forensic or real evidence to convict. This is a popular view among pro-prosecution types in order to gloss over the fact that very often there is an inadequate job done of forensic scientific evidence in this country. For example, if a gun is found in a house with four people in it and three of them finger the 4th, but fingerprint tests did not produce a match, many prosecution types would be happy for the fourth to be convicted on this basis. But juries may well be persuaded by the lack of the fingerprint evidence that they cannot be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that it was belonging to the 4th person. I think they would be quite correct to make such a finding.


Advertisement