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

Post-trial contact with Juror

  • 13-09-2012 12:01pm
    #1
    paycock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3 ✭


    Can anybody offer any views on the propriety/ legality of a lawyer approaching or indeed interviewing a former juror or jurors after a verdict has been reached, please ?

    Would your opinions be different if they failed to reach a verdict and a re-trial is pending ?

    My instinct is that when it comes to matters of ethics err on the side of caution.

    Thank You


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,552 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    paycock wrote: »
    Can anybody offer any views on the propriety/ legality of a lawyer approaching or indeed interviewing a former juror or jurors after a verdict has been reached, please ?

    Would your opinions be different if they failed to reach a verdict and a re-trial is pending ?

    My instinct is that when it comes to matters of ethics err on the side of caution.

    Thank You

    It's not appropriate behaviour, particularly if the lawyer was involved in the case.


  • #3
    paycock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3 ✭paycock


    Thank you for the reply, I wonder is it illegal, I see nothing in the Juries Act and given that it would be a great source of feedback re. the advocacy in the case, should the impropriety be a bar to exploring the resource?

    Again, in the context of a re-trial it would lend great insight to how the Jury viewed the issues in the case. This information can only enhance the quality of the defence and so should the impropriety be a bar to providing the best defence to an accused ?


  • #4
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    I know this is a legal forum but I'd like to comment on the non-legal aspects of this topic.

    The dynamics of the jury room have as much to do with the personalities that are sitting around the table as they do about the evidence and legal directions that they have to assimilate and digest so I'm not sure that getting feedback from one or two jurors would necessarily help a defence team prepare for the second trial.

    Bear in mind that the prosecution will also be operating with the benefit of hindsight and they will better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own witnesses and will in all probability adopt a different approach when cross examining defence witnesses because in the first trial they may have been ambushed by a particular sequence of defence witness but will be better prepared the second time round.

    So as well as a new jury, there will in all probability be a different flavour to what is presented to the jury in the second trial, hence I'd be sceptical as to the value of interviewing jurors from the first trial.


Advertisement