How does this get a conviction?

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914651#Comment_120914651

No it shouldn't and it's not.

many cases don't get to court because of a lack of evidence. The DPP has to be happy that there is enough evidence to bring a charge and to secure a conviction.

The judge has to be satisfied that the evidence is there, or else they will direct the jury to find the accused not guilty.

And finally the jury has to be satisfied of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

are you on the voters reg? If you ever get a call for jury duty, you should do it, you will find it very interesting

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120912355#Comment_120912355

That book, The Secret Barrister, is a very disturbing account of what's happening in English criminal law cases and the anonymous author discusses a good number of these innocent cases (including Dubliner Victor Nealon's extraordinary 17 years in prison; had he accepted his guilty conviction he could have walked free after 7 years.)

Peregrinus

The bar is not lower; the standard of proof required is the same as for any other crime, and many complaints never turn into prosecutions precisely because evidence likely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be assembled. In the UK just 1.3% of rape complaints lead to prosecutions, as opposed to an average for all crimes of 7.7%. (I don't have figures for Ireland.)

Furthermore when cases are prosecuted, conviction is not automatic. Again in the UK, acquittals are common; about 70% of rape trials result in a conviction as opposed to an average for all crimes of 82%.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120897908#Comment_120897908

Even leaving this case aside as I haven’t had the time to read up on it, yes, as a former jury member, I concur on that - as it happens in the case I attended, we did convict - evidence was strong and refutations from the defence were feeble to say the least.

While it’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt, and not up to the defence to prove innocence, if a defendant gives a no reply when questioned, it leaves little for the jury to go on, so we focus then purely on the quality of the prosecution case alone, as we’ve nothing from the defence.

Had they supplied even the smallest piece of evidence to create doubt it may have helped- no reply interviews have their benefits but also can lead to a greater strengthening of the prosecution case.

I see someone above quoted a miscarriage of justice case in the UK- I don’t know the ins/outs of the case- I wonder if he took the stand or answered questions put to him by police. It feels like the police felt they had solved the case and the jury agreed- I think it’s dangerous prosecuting a case with very little clear evidence unless there is a multitude of circumstantial evidence like in the case of that Architect done for murder of that vulnerable woman or the Mr Moonlight case. I guess this CAN happen but thankfully rare enough we hope- it wouldn’t have happened at my jury experience- we very much tested the evidence presented-

Peregrinus

Similar story but with the opposite outcome in a case in which my daughter served on the jury. Defendant did not testify and defence presented little evidence; just cross-examined the state witnesses. Jury felt the prosecution case was weak; at least one witness was clearly not giving the evidence the prosecution had expected them to give. General feeling in the jury room was that the defendant was more likely to be guilty than not, but that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, so they acquitted.

Jury were warned not to google the defendant or the witnesses and, if any juror did, they never mentioned it in the jury room. After the trial was over my daughter googled the defendant; he had previous charges of which he had also been acquitted.

According to my daughter, jurors took their job seriously, recognised their responsiblity, tested the evidence carefully, made a decision on the proper basis.

kowloonkev

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120914796#Comment_120914796

It would be nice to know though what kind of evidence proves these sorts of charges. If I was a juror I think I would need some physical evidence, or at least witnesses who saw/heard a crime taking place. I think if there is such evidence it should be released to help us understand and be satisfied that justice is being done. If I was a victim I would want evidence be known to the public.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2023/1208/1420899-jacinta-mcsherry-o-connor-court/

Here's another case I found baffling. The key argument of the prosecution seems to be 'the victim has no reason to make it up'. That is the kind of logic you'd imagine hearing in Salem a few centuries ago.

Peregrinus

I don't know where you're getting the "key argument of the prosecution" from. There's nothing about it in the report to which you link. Have you read another report somewhere about this?

This is a report of a sentencing hearing, taking place some time after the defendant had been convicted. There are no details in the report about the evidence given at the trial either by the prosecution or by the defence, so we don't know what evidence was before the jury. But there's nothing in the report to support an assumption that the jury convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim, contradicted only by the uncorroborated evidence of the defendant.

SharkMX

I often look at cases, even discrimination cases etc and very often there is no evidence whatsoever, yet a verdict is made that can ruin someones life on no evidence at all.

I was on a Jury once for a sexual assault case where a guy sexually assaulted a woman at a party 10 years earlier.

It all came down her word against his.

I couldnt find him guilty on that evidence myself but 10 jurors did. 7 of them women and 2 of the men easily led by the women, and one wanted to go home, i think he was getting a flight to see a football match that night. I did think he did it though but that was just my feeling and nothing more, i didnt like him, but there was no evidence at all apart from both their sides of the story.

They did bring in character witnesses for both sides and also people who were at the party. All of the witnesses were in the other room and saw them go in and noticed nothing before or after. One of her friends said the victim told her in the car on the way home but told her not to tell anyone.

Looking at it with a logical mind, there was no evidence whatsoever that anything took place apart from the woman saying it did. The man was very nervous and this was assumed to be guilt by most of the Jury. At one point one of them said to me "You would believe her if she was your sister wouldnt you. And beside he looks guilty as hell. He definitely did it.".

It was 9 - 3 at first. The judge told us to go back in and said they would except a 10 - 2. Most people said they wouldnt change their minds. Eventually after a few hours one of them changed to guilty, probably because we all wanted to go home. Said that the judge would just send us back again and again and then go for the majority verdict in the end so why drag it out. That was that. I read about 6 months later that he got 2.5 years.

The way the jury works is that you are picked from a pool and then go to the court. There they narrow it down to 12. You are then all taken for food and told what is going on. Then you go home and come back for the next day. You have lunch together and you do talk about the case though you are told not to talk about it outside the jury room. Some people you just know googled the people in the case too. You come in every day, and are sent out a few times while the barristers and judge speak without you around. You have to lock up your phones when you go into the jury room.

Then at the end the judge gives you instructions (what charging the jury is, reasonable doubt etc) and you go and discuss the case. You ask some questions and have to all go back into the courtroom to ask them. The judge gives out to you and sends you back saying you only have the evidence in front of you. You come back at the end of each day and say no verdict. Judge brings you back in the morning and says they will accept 10-2 now. It was afternoon the first day. After a few hours we were sent home for the weekend. Monday morning we spend another 3 hours deliberating. You give your verdict. Judge says you are free of jury duty for 2 years and then you go home. You hear nothing about the case again unless you read it in the media.

I wouldnt like someone to ever accuse me of anything where there is no proof apart from each others word. Because you are going to get convicted for sure if you are a man and the woman cries. Thats what had the most effect on the jury. The women all had him convicted without hearing a word and never wavered and you would get daggers and accusations yourself if you argued with them. 2 of the men were terrified of the women. It was like a gang. On the first morning before the trial started - "Did you see the creepy fker. He was looking at me and i was shaking". "Yeah and hes so ugly. What woman would ever voluntarily go near him". All just from the jury picking and before the trial even got underway.

kowloonkev

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489507#Comment_121489507

Apologies that was from the below article during the trial. There were reports from the courtroom but not much evidence at all barring the kind of gossip you might hear at the corner shop.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/teacher-accused-indecent-assault-male-31203371.amp

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489973#Comment_121489973

Well, that's a report of the evidence led by the defence. You need to look around for reports of the evidence led by the prosecution, but — spoiler alert — it may not be reported. Newspapers these days don't have the funds to have a court reporter in every courtroom, so whether a day's evidence gets reported depends on whether there was another, possibly more newsworthy, case going on in another courtroom on the same day.

All we know is that the jury, who heard all the evidence and heard it first-hand, found the charge proven beyond reasonable doubt. I'd be very slow to second-guess that based on partial, second-hand, accounts of some of the evidence given at the trial.

We're told that the defendant doesn't accept the verdict and, of course, she has a right of appeal. If there's any kind of argument that the evidence really doesn't support the verdict, you'd expect her to exercise that right. Do we know if she has lodged an appeal?