The Jury in the so-called fertilizer terrorism plot have now been deliberating for 21 days - the longest period in any trial ever.

As people have to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", I would suggest that if, after 21 days a decision has not been made then there is CONSIDERABLE doubt !

Do other posters agree?
Should there be a time limit on Jury deliberations?

Time limit definetly ITK.Spot on.

The jury want to go home and are bored with the subject matter they have to discuss day in and day out.
It`s only the outsiders not listening to it all day that are fascinated by the outcome.(ooh!and the media)

It is simply not fair to put pressures of convictions like this and many others, of course, on people that want to be somewhere else.

Interestingly enough, a friend who is ON jury service currently, was just on the phone, and declared that they couldn`t say what they were doing but it was a boring waste of taxpayers money.

How many decisions are based on the "Sir Fekkit" ruling.

"Sir Fekkit? I want to go home now."

Yes, it is quite clearly ludicrous for a bleary eyed jury foreman to emerge after weeks on end and declare someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Putting a time limit on reaching a verdict is an interesting proposal. I'm not sure what the time limit should be as some cases are obviously more complex than others.

I don't expect it's going to happen any time soon in any case

Information without perspective is merely a higher form of ignorance. As we will never know what is happening in the Jury room and why it has taken 21 days nobody can conclude there is doubt, considerable or otherwise.

Longest deliberation? The BBC website says regarding a timeshare fraud in Tenerife. "[The jury] spent 21 days reaching a verdict, one of the longest periods of deliberation in the history of the Old Bailey."

Based on that reference this trial is not "...the longest period in any trial ever". It would be interesting to know who says it is.

Time limits on Jury deliberation - what is the maximum time that ought to be allowed and how can we arrive at this figure?

Obviously we cannot just pluck a number out of the air there has to be a rational basis, what is that rational basis?

The rational basis, has to be, when anyone in the jury has had enough at any given time, as they will not be playing with a full deck of cards.

The jury deliberated for 4 weeks in the ' Ricin Plot' trial of 2005 before acquitting four Algerians, and I don't even know whether that was a record.

zooloo wrote:
Longest deliberation? The BBC website says regarding a timeshare fraud in Tenerife. "[The jury] spent 21 days reaching a verdict, one of the longest periods of deliberation in the history of the Old Bailey."

Based on that reference this trial is not "...the longest period in any trial ever". It would be interesting to know who says it is.


The BBC ! (The clue is in the title "Terrorism case jury sets record"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6591565.stm

Anthony wrote:
Yes, it is quite clearly ludicrous for a bleary eyed jury foreman to emerge after weeks on end and declare someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


Agreed. If a case is proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) it doesn't take very long to realise it !

Mart wrote:
The rational basis, has to be, when anyone in the jury has had enough at any given time, as they will not be playing with a full deck of cards.

That's not rational it's subjective.

What if on the first day a Juror said they'd had enough?

Equally a Jury sitting until one person says "I can't be bothered anymore" so the case stops and then what?

The playing with a full deck of cards issue brings up the issue of qualification to act a Juror, do they have the full deck of cards at the onset? Who should decide that and how can they decide?

If there is to be a time limit it has to be based on something objective - I think the nearest we get to it is the Judge accepting a majority verdict.

As we don't know why the Jury is taking X amount of time how can we decide that it is long enough or too long?

Mart wrote:
Time limit definetly ITK.Spot on.

The jury want to go home and are bored with the subject matter they have to discuss day in and day out.
It`s only the outsiders not listening to it all day that are fascinated by the outcome.(ooh!and the media)

It is simply not fair to put pressures of convictions like this and many others, of course, on people that want to be somewhere else.

This gets even more interesting Mart.

Apparently the Judge told the Jurors last Friday that as they could not reach unanimous verdicts, that he would accept a majority verdict of 11-1, or 10-2.

Since then they have deliberated for 3 more days and still no verdict - so we know that the Jury is split 9-3 at very best. (In other words, a quarter of the Jury are totally unconvinced by the arguments).

Of course, it could be worse than that - they may be split 8-4. 7-5. or even right down the middle 6-6. We simply don't know.

What we DO know is, if the evidence proves someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt then it doesn't take 24 days to realise that !

Mart wrote:
The rational basis, has to be, when anyone in the jury has had enough at any given time, as they will not be playing with a full deck of cards.

Agreed, Mart.

If this is simply allowed to go on and on there is a very real danger that someone will simply "give in" to the wishes of the other jurors, and go against their convictions, simply to get away from it all.

That will not be "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that will be "judgement by bullying" !

One of my jurors walked out in disgust after the trial was completed and they were considering verdicts.
I saw her getting into the lift and she raised her eyes to the skies in a gesture which implied to me she simply could not stand the negative pressure, gave me a smile of compassion and sympathy, and disappeared into the mists of judicial amnesia.

So I had an 11 person jury.

My trial took only about 5 days in total and the jury deliberated for nearly three days, which was considered extraordinary.

The Judge made it very clear there was a Contempt of Court order during the trial in case the jurors accidentally read something which might influence them. But he failed to warn them not to search the Internet ("Internet? What's that? A popular music combo?").

If they had done, and I'm sure they did, details of the initial charges (dropped) would have come up without any mention that they had been removed from the trial. Any normal juror would have assumed I'd done it before so I must be guilty.

The world of justice is not connected to reality.

If it had been hand written on parchment by quill pen, the judges could have understood it.

It's clear why the Judge has allowed this to go on and on.

The trial has taken over a year already - and he's very reluctant to call a halt and order a re-trial, and have to go through it all again.

What is equally clear is that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The longer this stalemate is allowed to go on the more likely that one of the Jurors will give in to the majority, sacrificing their principles, and yet another miscarriage of justice will have been perpetrated.

The selection process is most peculiar as well.
I have been selected twice and got myself out of it on the grounds of childcare problems and needing to work from home.
A month after I got off the second time, my childminder, who was looking after 8 kids at the time , failed to get off her service, thereby causing chaos to all the working families concerned.
I didn`t expect to get off, I just thought I`d try my luck, I certainly expected a childminder to have a better case than me.

I was selected several times for jury duty (one of the many silver linings to my recent conviction cloud is that I now cannot be selected for jury duty).

I always agreed readily but told them that, no matter what the evidence, I would always vote NOT GUILTY on a matter of principle - that I do not consider myself in a position to convict another human being.

As a result, I was NEVER chosen for jury duty.

Five men found guilty - two acquitted (on the 27th day of deliberations).

Good verdicts - or did the Jury just get fed-up and stick a pin into a piece of paper?

Hardly conclusive to the casual follower of verdicts and not trials, which the majority of people are.

A verdict like that makes it look like two people were walking by and got caught up in it.

Yet another reason to question jury selection.

The majority of peoples knowledge of a court case comes from a Hollywood blockbuster version of a great big fat paperback with very few words in, although enough skantly filled pages to aid a tan on the beach between daydreaming.