Juries are the lamp that shows that justice lives, even if it only has a 40w bulb

And yet the freeloons on the land types reject magistrates and insist on jury trials (or "Trial by Jury" - there being a difference if you're fvcking mental) as magistrates are "AgenTs OF tHE STaTE HaviNG SWoRn aN OAth TO tHe pRiVAtE Bar gUiLDS".

They should be careful what they wish for thinking their peers might actually have any understanding of what is going on. 

I had a somewhat similar issue in a long trial several years ago.  Jury asked if they had reached verdicts.  Said yes.  Asked how they found D1 on the only count he faced and said "Guilty".  There was then much shuffling and mumbling amongst jurors saying "no no hang on is that right".  Clerk asked again and they said Guilty.

Jury discharged following remaining verdicts.

D1 afterwards told Judge he was worried that the verdict was concerning and said Judge had to recall jury and enquire into their verdicts.  I had to frantically put the law together overnight as it is strictly verboten to enquire into verdicts post the jury having been discharged.  At that point the Judge is functus officio and there can be no further enquiry.

CofA agreed later on and said verdict safe.

Looks like same position in this case as by the time the apparent error is noted they have been discharged.

By and large though, in 20 odd years of dealing with jury trials the system does work well.  I appreciate this may not be the finest example of that sentiment though.

Many years ago as a trainee in criminal we were defending a chap accused of supplying drugs.  they were found in his bedroom.

Long story short, he was clearly bang to rights but found not guilty.   We were sitting in the train station cafe afterwards and one of the jurors came up to me and asked if he could talk to the chap.  I said that was ok.  The juror said that basically they knew he was guilty but just wanted to give him a chance.

That was an eye-opener for me as to how juries really work.

Nullification 

Part of me is always pleased when someone gets acquitted, whether they did it or not, because that’s a brilliantly happy moment for them at least, without any further harm done, their offence if any essentially being a sunk cost at that point. Posted to goad risky.

“The juror said that basically they knew he was guilty but just wanted to give him a chance.”

This is heartwarming, especially as drugs shouldn’t be illegal anyway.

The reason why jury deliberations are private is because of embarrassment.  After the jury acquitted Jeremy Thorpe and said he was guilty as hell but acquitted out of spite.  Instead therefore of shedding light on incompetence and stupidity, Parliament decided to hide it.

You are being too kind about the forewoman, Scepty.  There can be no excuse of not understanding the ‘big word’ : “unanimous “ because the question posed by the clerk does not include it.  The formulation is deliberately simple: “Is that the verdict of you all?” 

There is no excuse for her stupidity.

I like to think that the reason Parliament provides for jury trials is to allow for the occasional use of common sense, like my defendant who had clearly given a local yoof a thrashing for causing trouble (running over the cars on his road) but whom the jury found not guilty.  That was a good outcome.

Laz, whilst i appreciate your need to be contrarian and the fact that you have the privilege of being libertarian from the comfort of afar, there are occasions when it is not all sunshine and rainbows when an acquittal occurs.  Neither does the acquitted bask in the reflected glow of a final chance and neither is the world a safer place.

I came out of a four month trial recently.  Horrific offence where someone very close to the defendant was killed by him.  Brutally.  I am a firm believer in not really caring, in a pragmatic way, about the verdict.  For me a win is the jury making a decision, either way, as that means our system is functioning or at least appears to be.

Not so much in this case.  For the first time in decades.  The defendant had taken his victim's voice.  They were utterly cowed before their death.  The defendant had a history of violence against others in his care who were vulnerable.  I looked at and, for 50 plus hours or so, heard the defendant's temper and anger.  When the jury convicted I confess I was relieved.  An acquittal would have meant the defendant had, quite literally, got away with murder.  And would not have learned from that but simply continued in that behaviour pattern.

When you are immersed in that for many months and years it is difficult to see how an acquittal would have been "heartwarming".  I am sure you understand my point.

And i appreciate i am not Risky, but i am someone who perhaps comes at this from an informed decision and knows the reality of what people are truly capable of.  When you say "without further harm done", in my instance, i think that would not have been the case.

I think it is a good aspect of jury service if they call all agree that notwithstanding guilt it would be better if the accused was let off.

Your 1032 assumes no recidivism laz, which is obviously completely wrong. 

I accept that it is part of the system that a jury can deliver whatever verdict they like, but they do not always have all the information with which to decide whether it is "better" to acquit a person they believe to be guilty, eg info about previous convictions. 

I think a jury should strive to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty.    

I was foreperson on a complex criminal trial. What I thought was strange was that I was required to remember different verdicts across 14 different counts, many of which were worded very similarly but with crucial differences - leading to different verdicts across the piece.

I’m conscious of the restrictions around materials leaving the jury room, but should I have been offered the chance to write down the verdicts? I got them all right (of course), but it strained every sinew of my memory / attention to detail on the counts. I feared someone else could really have struggled.

"I think a jury should strive to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty.  "  

Generally speaking yes, but in some cases it may be clear to the jury that a conviction will do more harm than good.  Apparently one of the reasons for reducing the number of crimes for which the death sentence was applicable was because juries kept acquitting the guilty as the punishment was worse than the crime.  Obviously we dont have such extremes today but sometimes the letter of the law does not provide the best answer to a given situation.

I obviously fully agree with you Bailey as well as deferring to your expertise on the subject matter. I am however addicted to being glibly contrarian as u kno

After securing an acquittal in an arson trial I was approached by a juror who simply said to me

'We know he did it' 

and walked off.

I wasn't sure whether to take it as a compliment or an insult. 

I'm pretty certain he did it too but they reached the right verdict on the evidence.