Jury Deliberation - Case not ongoing anymore

wimpybeaver

Hi,

I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this question but I have no legal background and its something that happened that I've curious about since.

For reference the case is well over so I'm not trying to break any forum rules (I hope).

Background is that I was called up to serve in a jury for a criminal case. A couple of the charges were voted on and found to be not guilty, but the last charge after a long time we still could not reach a majority verdict and it was heading towards deadlock. So the vote was 8 for guilty and 4 for not guilty and the debating was getting intense.

After some time of back and forth, one person who was voting not guilty changed their mind (which they are perfectly entitled to do), but they decided to give a reason for it and they said or words to the effect that "ah, sure ill just go with what the group want but I'm just not sure".

Then after more time and heated debate another person changed their mind from not guilty to guilty and said "I really don't know if the person is guilty or not but I'm going to change my vote".

Then the vote was 10 for guilty and 2 for not guilty, we got called out and the nominated person returned the guilty verdict on that last charge.

So, I'm guessing that what happens in the Jury room stays in the Jury and all that and only the verdict returned can be taken into account when the decision is read out in court.

I and the other person who was voting for not guilty tried to explain the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt and that the onus is on the prosecution to prove it, and if they really were not sure, then they could not seriously vote for a guilty verdict. But they did and the result was passed.

My assumption is that thats just the luck of the Jury and it can happen either way. The court does not care what happens or how a verdict is reached and thats just that assuming there is no outside interference that is.

Is my assumption correct or should something else of been brought to the courts attention?

As I say, the case is well over and this is not an ongoing situation in any way. I've just been thinking about it and was wondering if its an interesting topic of debate or not?


Many Thanks

coylemj

I have no idea what the law says should happen in that case but my guess is that the jury foreman should have alerted the judge to the fact that jurors were voting for guilty for their own convenience. In all probability the jury would then have been discharged and a mistrial declared.

As to whether anything can be done about it now, there is an interesting parallel situation happening in the US where the Supreme Court has allowed an appeal based on something that one of the jurors said in the jury room.

The justices considered whether the so-called "no impeachment" rule -- meant to protect the secrecy of jury deliberations and the finality of jury verdicts -- should be pierced when the deliberations include racial bias.

Supreme Court allows piercing of secrecy of jury deliberations in racial bias case

wimpybeaver

Hi coylemj,

Thanks for the reply and link, very interesting angle on the challenging the Jury reasons.

To give a little more context based on what you mention in your reply. Lets just say that there was a core 3/4 people who were very determined/vocal on the guilty side and the jury foreman was one.

The last change of vote where it went from 9-3 to 10-2 also happened just as what we all assumed was a final knock on the Jury door to ask us to come out to court to see if we had reached a majority verdict. We all assumed it was going to be a deadlock decision returned at this stage. So we asked for another minute and had a final vote, it was then that the last person said "I really don't know if the person is guilty or not but I'm going to change my vote". We had the vote and went straight out to the court.

There wasn't much time to think about what just happened apart from trying to explain to the person about burden of proof is on the prosecution side and innocent until proven guilty etc etc

Again, not sure that it matters about the reason, but if I was pedantic for clarity and I were to have to describe the reason better I would say that those last two changes happened because of peer pressure/not wanting the burden of sticking to their guns more so than "that jurors were voting for guilty for their own convenience" like you said. But they both stated when changing their vote that they were not sure about the persons guilt. Like I say, I'm being pedantic about that description :-)


Thinking about it now, would I of been allowed to speak to express my concerns in court even if I was not the Jury foreman? Has that ever happened?

Thanks Again.

coylemj

wimpybeaver wrote: »

Thinking about it now, would I of been allowed to speak to express my concerns in court even if I was not the Jury foreman?

If a member of the jury switched their vote to guilty even though they explicitly said that they were not sure if the person was guilty or not, I would have put my hand up and relayed that to the judge, whether I was the foreman or not.

If you ask to speak, I cannot imagine how the judge could refuse to hear you.

wimpybeaver wrote: »

Has that ever happened?

Can't answer that. I suspect that it takes a lot of courage and if you were not the foreman, I can understand why most people would stay quiet.

Samuel T. Cogley

OP, if you haven't already watch '12 Angry Men' The Henry Fonda version.

While it may or may not be useful it's one of the greatest films of all time so its worth the time spent anyway :pac:

Captain_Crash

Its funny you mention this. I was on a jury for a serious crime several years ago, and on day 1, one of the jurors said aloud to everyone else in the jury room, "just to let you know, I'm voting guilty, he just looks it" or words to that effect.

We did ended up finding him guilty, and I believe we reached the correct decision, but the manner in which we went about the decision was surreal. One girl refused to find him guilty because he had a baby (I understand her emotions, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it) and another person refused to give a vote just so we could have a night a hotel, which provided free food and drink. As a result, day 2 of deliberations consisted of a jury of which half was hungover t'fook from the night before. We voted 10-2 in the end.

Looking back, I was grossly too young to be having a say in such a life changing decision for someone. I often wonder if the accused is still in prison, the sentence was life.

coylemj

Captain_Crash wrote: »

.... and another person refused to give a vote just so we could have a night a hotel, which provided free food and drink.

Not a uniquely Irish phenomenon - it was once used as the main storyline for an episode of the Simpsons. Homer was on a jury so he delayed the process in order to get a night in a hotel where he ended up sharing a room with Principal Skinner. Cue 'Odd Couple' type conflict of personalities - Homer the slob (debris from room service food on the floor all around his bed) vs. obsessively tidy Skinner.

Captain_Crash

coylemj wrote: »

That scenario was once used for an episode of the Simpsons

Haha I think I've seen that episode. Unfortunately, we didn't have a palace of any sorts. I wont name it, although apparently its well known as the jury hotel. I wouldn't be staying there again in a hurry tho.

Apologies to the OP, I don't mean to hijack the thread, just a recollection from my Jury experience.

Johnboy1951

By the sounds of it there needs to be some form of qualifying exam for jurors, to eliminate those who cannot hear, comprehend and logically make decisions based on evidence alone.

I have never been called to serve on a jury, or been before a jury as defendant, but the descriptions in this thread would tend to scare me as a defendant or frustrate me as a juror if I was serving.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not so sure. For starters, juries are not sequestered any more so you're not looking at being locked away for the weekend. And if it's a case of wanting to be done with the case, wouldn't it depend on where the jury is at on the first vote? Say the foreman calls a vote and there's seven or eight for not guilty, the others may just fall into line and go with the majority.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

wimpybeaver

Hi, sorry for the late reply, long weekend and all that :-)

Thanks for the opinions. After reading other peoples experience, it would seem that this may not be as random an experience as I first thought.

I would definitely be in favour of some sort of qualifying exam after going through the process now. There was at least two people there that thought (and one say it outright) that "we have been here for nearly a week and if I don't find him guilty for something, it would be a waste of my time"!!! FFS

Overall, it was a very surreal experience and was a real eye opener on how groupthink can start and grow.

P.S. Adding 12 Angry Men to my list of movies to watch :-D