3 questions about juries in Irish law

Jeremy Sproket

1) Can individual jurors ignore the judges direction to find a person guilty or not guilty? In a recent case where a person was acquitted of murdering her children, the judge told the jurors to find the defendant not guilty. If the jurors are obliged to obey this then what is the point of having them?

2) Are individual jurors votes anonymous to the judge or the jury foreperson? Who decides when an if a majority verdict is necessary or if a unanimous is necessary? If it's decided on a whim, then it just looks like goalpost shifting.

3) In your opinion, would we be better off abolishing the jury and having a panel of judges decide guilt in trials by indictment rather than laypersons? IE, what they do in civil law jurisdictions. Are juries compulsory under common law? Is there any common law jurisdiction (to your knowledge) which does NOT have juries?

Nuac and hullabaloo, please share your legal knowledge with us. You contribute well to this forum.

hullaballoo

I was going to share my legal knowledge but by implication you do not believe I contribute well to this forum.

In which case, I'll just say we should do away with criminal trials and just hang people once there's an accusation. No smoke without fire is there.

LMHC

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

1) Can individual jurors ignore the judges direction to find a person guilty or not guilty? In a recent case where a person was acquitted of murdering her children, the judge told the jurors to find the defendant not guilty. If the jurors are obliged to obey this then what is the point of having them?

2) Are individual jurors votes anonymous to the judge or the jury foreperson? Who decides when an if a majority verdict is necessary or if a unanimous is necessary? If it's decided on a whim, then it just looks like goalpost shifting.

3) In your opinion, would we be better off abolishing the jury and having a panel of judges decide guilt in trials by indictment rather than laypersons? IE, what they do in civil law jurisdictions. Are juries compulsory under common law? Is there any common law jurisdiction (to your knowledge) which does NOT have juries?

Nuac, please share your legal knowledge with us. You contribute well to this forum.

A judge will give direction to a jury if there is a point of law leading him or if the evidence is overwhelming I.E Dee Morley's evidence was clear shed a mental health issue to what extent I do not know.

All juries go back to agree a unanimous decision if after a number of hours they report back to the judge they are having difficulties securing a unanimous decision he can give leaning to allow a majority decision, rather then suffer a hung jury.

Judge and jury is the only fair way to conduct a trial. By no means will they get it right every time but they will to the best of their abilities to achieve a resolution. As someone who has been on a few trials having your faith in hands of Judges like the special criminal court is unfair. You should be judged by a jury of your peers. That's why the specials should be abolished.

AlmightyCushion

I've served on a jury and while it was an interesting experience and I would do it again, it would also have be very worried if my fate was decided by one. A few people said they had serious doubts but were still voting guilty. Someone actually said that the guards wouldn't have brought the case to court if they didn't think the person did it and others agreed with them.

Some people were just so easily swayed as well. On our jury if you had swapped out 2 or 3 members who were arguing one way with people who would argue the other way, I honestly think you could have gotten a different verdict.

LMHC

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I've served on a jury and while it was an interesting experience and I would do it again, it would also have be very worried if my fate was decided by one. A few people said they had serious doubts but were still voting guilty. Someone actually said that the guards wouldn't have brought the case to court if they didn't think the person did it and others agreed with them.

Some people were just so easily swayed as well. On our jury if you had swapped out 2 or 3 members who were arguing one way with people who would argue the other way, I honestly think you could have gotten a different verdict.

But surely you'd rather your future in hands of your peers then 3 judges. The only way your getting a not guilty in the specials is if your SC has a proven point of law that they cannot rule on or someone throws their hands up. You stand some chance of a not guilty when it is your own on a jury.

KaneToad

LMHC wrote: »

You should be judged by a jury of your peers. That's why the specials should be abolished.

How could we get around the issue of jury corruption/intimidation without using the special?

Are there better mechanisms we could use, do you think. I agree that the jury of your peers is very important.

LMHC

KaneToad wrote: »

How could we get around the issue of jury corruption/intimidation without using the special?

Are there better mechanisms we could use, do you think. I agree that the jury of your peers is very important.

Realistically jury tampering is very very rare. I understand it happens but its rare. Watching the specials rail road men off to be warehoused is wrong. I know one case the specials lifed a man off who didn't do the crime, cause everyone knows who done the crime.

Irishphotodesk

KaneToad wrote: »

How could we get around the issue of jury corruption/intimidation without using the special?

Are there better mechanisms we could use, do you think. I agree that the jury of your peers is very important.

The only way to reduce jury corruption/intimidation as I understand it would be to have jury selection as an independent process and have the jurors meet elsewhere and transported to and from the court building, restrict access to jury trials to only the defendant/defendants the legals and media, this would limit the opportunity to tail/interact with a juror.

I'm not sure if the above would be legal/possible but it's the method I would choose to minimise the chances of jury fiddling.

dilallio

Are there any rules prohibiting individuals participating in a jury if they already know others in the jury?

I know of one case a while back where a close colleague was a juror, and 2 others in the same jury including a manager all worked in the same company, and knew each other really well.

KaneToad

LMHC wrote: »

Realistically jury tampering is very very rare. I understand it happens but its rare. Watching the specials rail road men off to be warehoused is wrong. I know one case the specials lifed a man off who didn't do the crime, cause everyone knows who done the crime.

I'm not trying to be confrontational but who is 'everyone' ? Do you know who did the crime and have you made the guards aware of the evidence you have for this?

Captain_Crash

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I've served on a jury and while it was an interesting experience and I would do it again, it would also have be very worried if my fate was decided by one. A few people said they had serious doubts but were still voting guilty. Someone actually said that the guards wouldn't have brought the case to court if they didn't think the person did it and others agreed with them.

Some people were just so easily swayed as well. On our jury if you had swapped out 2 or 3 members who were arguing one way with people who would argue the other way, I honestly think you could have gotten a different verdict.

Had the exact same experience when on a jury in a murder trial in ‘08. One bloke said on the first day, “he’s guilty, he just looks it” and another when deliberating refused to go with guilty because the accused had a baby daughter. Judge accepted a 11-1 majority and I’m happy we reached the right decision, but it was interesting how some came to thier verdict!

LMHC

KaneToad wrote: »

I'm not trying to be confrontational but who is 'everyone' ? Do you know who did the crime and have you made the guards aware of the evidence you have for this?

Sorry not everyone but it would be common knowledge this person didn't do the murder.

The J Stands for Jay

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Had the exact same experience when on a jury in a murder trial in ‘08. One bloke said on the first day, “he’s guilty, he just looks it” and another when deliberating refused to go with guilty because the accused had a baby daughter. Judge accepted a 11-1 majority and I’m happy we reached the right decision, but it was interesting how some came to thier verdict!

It's crazy how many idiots there are in the population. It's actually scary.

LMHC

dilallio wrote: »

Are there any rules prohibiting individuals participating in a jury if they already know others in the jury?

I know of one case a while back where a close colleague was a juror, and 2 others in the same jury including a manager all worked in the same company, and knew each other really well.

Nothing to prohibit jury members knowing each others. If they know the accused, Injured party, victim or family members they must disclose it.

Jeremy Sproket

hullaballoo wrote: »

I was going to share my legal knowledge but by implication you do not believe I contribute well to this forum.

In which case, I'll just say we should do away with criminal trials and just hang people once there's an accusation. No smoke without fire is there.

I've amended my OP accordingly

Hope you weren't too offended :P

koutoubia

I was a juror on a murder trial a few years ago.
As mentioned above there were some people who had the person on trial down as guilty form the moment they saw them.
The case got very complicated and we couldnt get to a majority verdict after 2 full days of deliberating. We got to Friday and judge started to give us choices that I wont go into here.

One of the jurors recieved a threat during the trial.
Again I wont go into details but we decided to inform the judge but we wouldnt be influenced.

If I ever had to stnd trial I would hope to be in front of a jury that I was a part of. A lot of level headed people to take control of people who had preconcieved notions based on looks and geography.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

A judge will give direction to a jury if there is a point of law leading him or if the evidence is overwhelming I.E Dee Morley's evidence was clear shed a mental health issue to what extent I do not know.

All juries go back to agree a unanimous decision if after a number of hours they report back to the judge they are having difficulties securing a unanimous decision he can give leaning to allow a majority decision, rather then suffer a hung jury.

Judge and jury is the only fair way to conduct a trial. By no means will they get it right every time but they will to the best of their abilities to achieve a resolution. As someone who has been on a few trials having your faith in hands of Judges like the special criminal court is unfair. You should be judged by a jury of your peers. That's why the specials should be abolished.

I wouldn't want a bunch of criminals deciding my faith.

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I wouldn't want a bunch of criminals deciding my faith.

You cant be judged by anyone with a criminal conviction.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

You cant be judged by anyone with a criminal conviction.

you're arguing with a joke.

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're arguing with a joke.

Arguing? Hahah you must of lived a sheltered life.

ohnonotgmail

LMHC wrote: »

Arguing? Hahah you must of lived a sheltered life.

what else do you call proposing an opposite position?

LMHC

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what else do you call proposing an opposite position?

Discussing.