Former City Player George Glendon Rape Case (NOT GUILTY)

[Mike D]

sounds like he was sober and she was very drunk so just dont have sex,its not difficult is it

Easier said than done Karen a nineteen year old lad testostirones flying around everywhere and there's naked girl in front of you pulling your truncheon. I have been there myself (obviously not been accused of rape bit.)its hard to turn down like most lads at that age your dick rules your brain. So long as he took precautions then like most lads he filled his boots.

 

[Bewar3them00n]

Does anyone ever get found innocent, You're either guilty or not.

I thought it was"innocent" until proved guilty?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Natural prejudice towards their own sex I suppose?

I wouldn't go there - more likely they just did their job, assessed the evidence, and found it insufficient.

I don't think that UK law allows for complaining about gender (or any other) bias; when I've done jury service, they called 15 from a pool of 200, and then randomly drawn 12 from those 15, so it is pretty random what you get.

 

[che_don_john]

I'm not at all convinced that there is any legal reason they could do that. It's simply "do you have connection with either party".

I served on a jury last year (horrible experience - do what you can to get out of it if you ever get called up!) and we were told that either parties could reject a jury for reasons as simple as not liking the demographic. In fact, the second trial I was meant to do had already had two jury's rejected - we were the third and then the defendant didn't show up anyway.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I served on a jury last year (horrible experience - do what you can to get out of it if you ever get called up!) and we were told that either parties could reject a jury for reasons as simple as not liking the demographic. In fact, the second trial I was meant to do had already had two jury's rejected - we were the third and then the defendant didn't show up anyway.

I've done it twice, including having a rape trial.

What you write sounds odd to me, but I'm not an expert.

 

[ancoats]

this is why the media should never get involved with any court hearing a press embargo should be set until found guilty or not. now this lad is finished and the shit sticks if you throw enough at the fans all the media crap before and during his case is not needed the lad has to get on in life and start again with this thing around his neck

 

[M18CTID]

I won't lie. After reading the initial article in the link on the first page I thought this looked quite bad for him with her falling over and falling asleep in the taxi and stuff - more damning for me than the Ched Evans case who I always felt had been wrongly convicted, particularly as a rape had never been reported on that occasion - but clearly other stuff has come out since for him to be found not guilty.

Pedantic as it seems, Damocles has a point - not guilty doesn't mean he definitely didn't do it but considering it took a jury only half an hour to acquit him, I think it's fair to say he almost certainly is innocent.

 

[che_don_john]

I've done it twice, including having a rape trial.

What you write sounds odd to me, but I'm not an expert.

Found this to explain it:

Peremptory challenge in English and American law is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied.

The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".

Apparently though only the prosecution can exercise it these days, so it wouldn't have helped Glendon anyway.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I won't lie. After reading the initial article in the link on the first page I thought this looked quite bad for him with her falling over and falling asleep in the taxi and stuff - more damning for me than the Ched Evans case who I always felt had been wrongly convicted, particularly as a rape had never been reported on that occasion - but clearly other stuff has come out since for him to be found not guilty.

Pedantic as it seems, Damocles has a point - not guilty doesn't mean he definitely didn't do it but considering it took a jury only half an hour to acquit him, I think it's fair to say he almost certainly is innocent.

It usually looks like that, as the prosecution has first go and put its side. You can come off the first day thinking 'they're stuffed', only for the next day to have that opinion torn apart.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Found this to explain it:

Apparently though only the prosecution can exercise it these days, so it wouldn't have helped Glendon anyway.

Cheers.
I guess someone in the jury box with e.g. an obvious tattoo related to a relevant group, might be considered to be questionable. In that case, you might not want to tip off the defence why they were being rejected.