UUBlue said:I've been a juror on two rape cases. In one case the judge stopped the trial and directed the jury to return a 'not guilty' verdict. In the other case we were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.
From what we are reading about the Le Vell case, I would imagine there isn't enough evidence to convince the jury of guilt. Whatever the truth of the matter, his life and career are in tatters, and the alleged victim may well have psychological damage. Very sad.
How can you sudenly find them not guilty if you cant get 10-2 majority .surley the judge would redirectUUBlue said:I've been a juror on two rape cases. In one case the judge stopped the trial and directed the jury to return a 'not guilty' verdict. In the other case we were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.
From what we are reading about the Le Vell case, I would imagine there isn't enough evidence to convince the jury of guilt. Whatever the truth of the matter, his life and career are in tatters, and the alleged victim may well have psychological damage. Very sad.
The CPS have either dropped one allmighty bollock or they have something up there sleevemackenzie said:worsleyweb said:Pigeonho said:It'll be interesting to see how it goes. Purely a guess based on his reactions, I would say he's guilty, but then again i've not heard or seen her reactions as she's behind a curtain, so to speak.
The think is though you can't guess when the rest of someone's life is at stake. Like I said earlier I have no idea if he is guilty or not. If I were sat on that jury I would have to be pretty certain to send a man down for x years.
I agree. And if its just his word against hers then I can't see how a conviction could be considered safe?
cyberblue said:How can you sudenly find them not guilty if you cant get 10-2 majority .surley the judge would redirectUUBlue said:I've been a juror on two rape cases. In one case the judge stopped the trial and directed the jury to return a 'not guilty' verdict. In the other case we were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.
From what we are reading about the Le Vell case, I would imagine there isn't enough evidence to convince the jury of guilt. Whatever the truth of the matter, his life and career are in tatters, and the alleged victim may well have psychological damage. Very sad.
Yes, this is correct.Uncle Wally One Ball said:I think he means the judge will have instructed that he would accept a 10-2majority verdict but that couldn't be achieved. As a consequence, it means not guiltytidyman said:UUBlue said:Iwe were split 6v6 when we retired. We persuaded three of the accused's guilt. Two others did not enter debate at all, for some very misguided reasons (they were a disgrace to our system of justice). We found the accused not guilty eventually, because we couldn't reach a 10-2 majority.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying you were stuck on 9/3 guilty but because you couldn't convince one of the three to go guilty, you all agreed to go not guilty?
mcmanus said:To be fair Mamba if you are a celebrity charged with 'mud sticks' sorta crimes it's shit before the trial and if you are guilty it's hell but on the flip side if you are found innocent/not guilty the press do tell the world.
Some blokes found completely innocent always seem to be judged a bit odd.
UUBlue said:Yes, this is correct.Uncle Wally One Ball said:I think he means the judge will have instructed that he would accept a 10-2majority verdict but that couldn't be achieved. As a consequence, it means not guiltytidyman said:I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying you were stuck on 9/3 guilty but because you couldn't convince one of the three to go guilty, you all agreed to go not guilty?
black mamba said:mcmanus said:To be fair Mamba if you are a celebrity charged with 'mud sticks' sorta crimes it's shit before the trial and if you are guilty it's hell but on the flip side if you are found innocent/not guilty the press do tell the world.
Some blokes found completely innocent always seem to be judged a bit odd.
It's clearly not the 'end of the world' though if you find yourself acquitted of such crimes .... people DO cope !
mcmanus said:black mamba said:mcmanus said:To be fair Mamba if you are a celebrity charged with 'mud sticks' sorta crimes it's shit before the trial and if you are guilty it's hell but on the flip side if you are found innocent/not guilty the press do tell the world.
Some blokes found completely innocent always seem to be judged a bit odd.
It's clearly not the 'end of the world' though if you find yourself acquitted of such crimes .... people DO cope !
Once got charged with assault (completely innocent but went to Magistrates) locked up for a day when arrested and that pissed me right off. Bored senseless I got thinking what if it was say murder or rape ..... you're head would explode.
Horrible story. Surely the jurors could opt out of such a case because that information should be left to strong willed characters who can give a straight judgement and not be swayed.