The learned judge calls his jury to account

From time to time the issue arises as to whether jury trial is appropriate in say, complex fraud trials.

In the "Yes" corner are those who say that what the jury is there to do is basically to decide if the defendant was dishonest - and exactly how he conducted that dishonesty and what he achieved doesn't really matter.

In the "No" corner are those that say that 12 people chosen at random (and chosen sometimes from a limited group of people who can afford to spend several weeks on a jury) are likely to be unable to follow and understand the evidence in a complex fraud case especially when they receive it piecemeal from a series of witnesses giving oral evidence about different aspects in no coherent order.

I am bound to say that a trial is not about seeking to establish an understanding of events and the truth of what was done, by whom and why.  That would be a public enquiry type arrangement.  A jury trial is about the prosecution seeking to prosecute and the defence seeking to frustrate that.

So if the defence are unable to frustrate the prosecution that may be because the defendant is guilty.

Turning to the Vicky Pryce case, we don't know (and can never find out) what was going on in the jury room.  One could speculate that the questions were put to the judge in the hope that he might make it abundantly clear to some 'awkward' jury member(s) that their approach to reaching a verdict was incorrect.

It doesn't follow that all 12 jury members thought that they could reach a verdict by entirely ignoring the evidence in court and just making up their mind anyway!

David

What is the alternative ?

Magistrates & judges are clearly biased in favour of the prosecution so I see no reasonable alternative to a jury. Perhaps some minimum level of intelligence might be useful, but again what is often needed is not "intelligence" so much as common sense.

It always seems the opposite to me! Even when the defendant is found guilty they mostly give out very lenient, or minimum, sentences. I remember recently one fraudster got off without even a fine, because the judge thought he had suffered enough because he has lost some of his own money! This was reported on AWeb a while ago.

There doesn't seem to be any real deterrent to crime any longer, which is why so many people are willing to risk it and just help themselves to other peoples money & possessions.

many many years ago, it was a fascinating experience. It was still in the days when jurors could be challenged by the defence and it was only when I stopped wearing a jacket that I managed not to get thrown off!

Two things stick in my memory. One was the banality of some of the cases such as attempted shoplifting!

The second was the Jury discussions. In particular, there was one case where it was necessary we understood a particular element of the law. The judge gave a crystal clear explanation of this in simple language. It became apparent that only two of us had understood it. Based on this, I suspect David's thoughts about the reasons for posing that apparently daft question may well be right.

But, and it's a big but, for my case it all worked out and I was absolutely comfortable with the verdicts reached in all of the cases I was on.

There was one incident in the jury room in the first case which still leaves me with with fits of the giggles. Unfortunately it is not suitable to repeat on a public forum and anyway I would have to shoot you all if I revealed it. :-)

If you get the opprotunity to serve and you can manage the time, I do recommend it.

It would likely produce much the same results as trial by professional jurors.

 More than the current system of lawyers, appeals, further appeals, appeals etc? At least it would produce a quick verdict.

...why we have such highly educated men and women who are (generally) accepted as being capable of rational, objective decision-making, specifically trained in understanding of the law of the land - and yet we allow 12 lay people to come up with the verdict.

It would be an appropriate moment for the Nigel Farage clip (often shown on HIGNFY) saying "baffling".

It would greatly reduce the cost and, surely, the time taken in these cases.

... when you could still challenge the jury, hiis counsel advised object to the whites but keep the blacks as they tend to vote against the police regardless of whether or not they think you are guilty!

Isn't there an argument for pupils to be taught about the basic principals of law as part of the learning process, so that if later called for jury duty they at least have a basic knowledge of what is required of them?

I am 100% in favour of the jury system rather than trial by professional cynics, but I do feel that perhaps we need to improve the quality of juries rather than get rid of them.

... but my hearts's not in it!

Strangely though, as stated above, common sense is better than IQ or intelligence.

Those unencumbered by learning do have a knack of seeing straight to the heart of a problem.

This is worth a watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejHKA2HI4TY

Ther was another one but I couldn't find it, gist was they were deliberating for days with one little old dear knitting and saying notheing, when they finally asked her opinion she pipes up, of course he's guilty, little toe rag lives down my street, always up to no good - or something on those lines - if anyone remembers would be pleased to hear?

... gave me the answer,

Good old Arther Daly ...

... classic stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDezSreIFEI

don't become the same as the professional politicians we have, who have no clue clue what the real world is like....

... Ms Pryce has admitted to the offence, why then have a trial, why not have a suitably competent panel review her extenuating circumstances to advise the judge on the level of leniency, that after all is what is being argued over!

Basically, she broke the law, unless it was under fear for her life she is guilty as charged and should get the appropriate punishment, although a suspended sentance would be the worst appropriate in my view 

As I understand this matter is still 'live' in court we have to be very careful about commenting in 'the media'.

However my understanding is that Ms Pryce denies that she is guilty of the offence and, in effect, asks the jury to return a 'not guilty' verdict.

I believe the legal point is that if she acted under what might be called 'matrimonial compulsion' she is not guilty.

So it is a question for the jury.

There is a (non-jury) procedure, known as a 'Newton hearing', used in cases where a defendant admits an offence but there remain issues as to 'how guilty' he is.

For example suppose Mr X is accused of stealing £100,000.  He says "It's a fair cop guv, I dunn it, but I only had fifty grand".

Suppose the prosecution do not accept that he stole only £50,000.

Then a hearing involving a judge (but no jury) can be held in which witness evidence (relevant to the issue in dispute) is heard in the usual way with counsel asking questions just like a jury trial.  Then the judge will come to a conclusion about 'Wot he dunn' and will sentence Mr X accordingly.

David

... "matrimonial compulsion" - so much for feminism and equal rites.

So, a guy finds his wife in bed with his accountant and in the red mist goes a bit far gets banged up ( as I think "crime of passion" is no longer a defence?), but a wife who takes the "revenge is a dish best served cold" option walks away scot-free!

This is the problem these days, it is all semantics, although it keeps David in a good living!

May be I am just an old cynic but the phrase "it's a fair cop gov" seems to have gone the way of the Dodo!

Perhaps all civil cases could be televised and the public could be invited to dial chargeable 0800 numbers to state

A)Guilty

B)Not Guilty

C)Don't know

The proceeds from the calls could be awarded to the victim in damages.

Further phone numbers could be made available for the sentencing.

The existing system may not be perfect but there are far worse alternatives.