Say that again!

The BBC says...

Two-thirds of jurors in criminal trials do not fully understand a judge's legal directions, a study of juries suggests.
Some jurors were tempted to search online to find out more about the case they were hearing, the two-year study for the Ministry of Justice said.

and goes on to report...

Online checks
The study also examined the media's impact on juries and found that while in most cases stories faded from memory, some jurors in high profile trials struggled to put them out of mind.
It said a small proportion of jurors admitted to going online to find out more about their case, sometimes out of a misguided attempt to do a better job.


In my case, the judge did not instruct jurors not to go online where there were numerous reports of my initial arrest - every allegation of which was thrown out by the judge in legal argument and not a part of my trial - but any juror would have thought "he's done it before - he must be guilty".

yes I saw that too and immediately thought of you.

I was on a jury years ago and people really did say "he looks guilty" about a burglar. The others tried to browbeat a few of us but gave up as time went on.They wanted to get home. He got off but the ignorance is frightening.

"He got off"? That is often the phrase used when people think a guilty person has gone free. Do you think he was guilty, or do you mean that the "Not guilty" verdict was the right one?

I would hate to be on a jury. I would probably find everyone not guilty because I'd always wonder if I'd really been told all the facts. Most cases tend to be based on accusation or previous convictions.

I have done jury service......

On Crown Court jury where there were 12 people often a good half were of what I would say is limited intelligence - and they were also the most vocal.

Having said that I believe we got ALL the decisions right in the end - because they took it seriously BUT we did not have a high profile case toc look at.

I firmly believe that High Profile cases are almost impossible because every juror has a prior position before even entering the Courtroom from the media and how they view such situations.

That is why SION JENKINS got convicted when it was 100% obvious he did not do it - and so did the Jill Dando guy. Both of these men went to prison because of the media coverage - not the evidence.

In JK's case that also certainly seems to be the position.

In addition famous people seem to get double the length of sentence. REAL criminals always seem to get short sentences because I suppose they know they will back in any case a few years later for a new sentence !!!!

I read some ACTS yesterday that New Labour had brought in. I can tell you now that they are unwieldy - badly worded - ambivalent - full of loopholes ( Both ways ) and seem to have been drawn up by a 10 year old. No wonder our courts are in such a mess.

The first thing I would do as a new TORY HOME SECRETARY is order a review of ALL of New Labour;s Legislation since 1997 and particulary 2002 onwards. Repeal most of it - and where necessary pass new clearer laws.

The mess we are in only benefits LAWYERS - and guess what.....CHERIE AND TONY and mates were all LAWYERS......so no wonder they passed such a mess to keep them in work for years to come.

OK- badly worded Emma Bee.

I mean he was found Not Guilty as it should have been because 4 of us decided the evidence wasn't conclusive and held to our beliefs which were genuine and as directed by the judge.

The others came around to our thinking but I am convinced it was only to get the hell out of there.
And I was surpised by the ones with me-much older pensioner types who actually took it seriously whereas the ones who said "he looks guilty" were fairly young by comparison. One even said "he looks my ex-boyfriend" with a sour note in her voice!

It's not an experience I wish to repeat.