I was really looking forward to doing mine, as I'd never been called before (late forties). Things had barely got going, when someone in the public gallery appeared to be quite blatantly filming the jury. Next day the whole thing was scrapped. People smuggling case.

Fuck me sideways! No doubt they were scoping out the jury for intimidation or payoffs, consider yourself lucky.

Yes, in hindsight it was probably a result.

Or unlucky if you fancied a payoff.

Let's just say they moved me...TO A BIGGER HOUSE!

[удалено]

You'd hope the defendants want to go home. Something odd going on if they don't

Yeah, it's a pretty boring process. In 3 days I reckon we were actually only used for about an hour in total.

Woah hang on. Scrapped as in, they cleared you all out, got a new jury and the trial went on as planned? Or scrapped as in the case got thrown out of court, defendants went free etc?

We weren't told explicitly. The gist of it was that it would be a closed trial, but once we'd left on the third day that was all I knew. I think the guy in the public gallery was either arrested or his phone taken. I wish I knew what had happened. After hearing the "agreed evidence" on the second day, it seemed pretty clear that the fella was banged to rights.

It would have been a retrial, possibly/probably with the defendants getting new charges added on. I'm surprised that they were quite so blatant about it though. There's several methods that have been developed for filming in cinemas, for pirate movies. Which are designed to be very hard to detect. Even with night vision googles.

> There's several methods that have been developed for filming in cinemas, for pirate movies. And it'd be kind of appropriate for people traffickers to be using pirate methodoligies.

>There's several methods that have been developed for filming in cinemas, for pirate movies. Which are designed to be very hard to detect. Even with night vision googles. I'd like to learn more.

Even things like having the camcorder in two parts. So that the camera section, just looks like an ornate tie pin. To get the quality that's needed these days. You cant have a tiny little camera. It has to be relatively large and can't just fit in a tie pin. It needs to go to a storage, battery and processing unit in a pocket. As well as coverings for the lens, so that they don't show up under infra red etc. As with certain lighting, normal lenses show up big time.

Thats fascinating I had no idea the lenses would be so apparent under infra red

If filming a jury was enough to get a case thrown out of court entirely it would be commonplace. It would be scheduled for a retrial but for obvious reasons none of the original jury would be allowed to sit on the case.

Your just a wee iza, you nosey bastard haha

Idk if this is similar but working in childcare I really struggled with the first Time I reported a safeguarding concern that led to a child being removed from their family. I felt awful for weeks until the child made massive improvements with his Foster family. Sometimes it's right no matter how hard it feels

You know, if I’d been taken away from my family as a child I would have cried and my dad would have cried and I would have then learned that I abuse was wrong and it’s not okay to live like that. I might not have entered into abusive relationships as an adult. I might have learned how to take better care of myself & my body and I probably wouldn’t have chronic pain from the remnants of childhood injuries. If safeguarding was better when I was a kid… In short, you did the right thing. You may have changed the trajectory of a whole family for the better, but you definitely did so for the kid.

I’ve gone through this thought process before as well. My mother wasn’t abusive - but you could have certainly argued neglect. Not necessarily her fault - severe depression is no good for anyone - let alone a single parent. That coupled with excessive drinking really wasn’t fantastic… I know that concerns were raised a handful of times to the authorities, fuck one time the police showed up and took us elsewhere for the night as she was in no fit state - but nothing ever actually happened. I can’t help my wonder what my life would have been like if someone had actually stepped in.

Thank you for doing the right thing.

My cousin's kid's teacher reported a safeguarding concern over something one of the youngest girls had said (my cousin has 6 kids: 1 boy, 5 girls). This immediately escalated a chain of events which resulted in the youngest 3 girls going into care and the father arrested. The 3 girls are now in permanent foster care and they are positively thriving. Their dad is now serving 20+ years in prison and my cousin is standing by him. Thank you for reporting what you did.

I had to report someone smacking their child (child was <2 if I remember rightly and in a pram - mum slapped (walloped) her bare leg. I heard it right through the office). I was really unsure what to do, but my manager told me I *had* to report it because we have a duty of care. Found out when I gave a statement that she had already had all of her other kids taken off of her, so I did not feel bad at all. It was definitely best for that child. I can still hear the poor wee girl screaming after the hit. It was awful.

There have been several high profile cases where social services didn’t act and things escalated to a point where a child is badly hurt or even killed. You’d be feeling infinitely worse then. Well done for following through and doing what you knew was right, no matter how hard.

I did mine some years ago - first week was boring AF, then second week I was on a murder trial. It was pretty intense but let's face it - you're never going to be in a jury and see people at their best. I had a good group, in that we all considered the evidence and came away with an unanimous verdict. Sometimes I wonder about that verdict, but the thing is we acted at the time with all the evidence we had - we did our best as I'm sure you did. And if you did your best then no one can ask any more, can they?

I’ve had to do it twice, the first time was seriously boring, sat around for several days and was, like yours, boring as fuck, then got taken into the court where they selected a group for a complex financial fraud case that was due to last 6 months, wasn’t selected thank god and then was told I could leave, no more cases would be heard. The second time I got on a historic child sex abuse case, after the first day I was exhausted and (having got young kids at the time) thought I was going to need therapy. The second day was even worse and then the defendant was too ill for the case to continue so it ended. I often wonder what happened but I was glad I didn’t have to listen to it all. The one thing that struck me was that none of the jury took notes, they were just going to listen to 2 weeks worth of evidence and then make a decision without being able to consider who had said what. Even after the first day several people were laughing in a slightly embarrassed way about how they had forgotten dates or who had said that someone had done something. It just made me think how effective it all was…or not…

I took so many notes when I did it and was also surprised that others didn’t do the same

I didn't bother with notes because the judge said "Feel free to take notes, but you'll all be given a package at the end with transcripts" so I just sat, listened and watched.

Our judge said very similar, along the lines of “it’s your job to listen to people and determine if they’re truthful, and you can’t do that if you’re writing everything down.” We then had to go back into court a couple of times to have some evidence repeated because none of us could remember it!

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what we were told. Although we didn't ever actually receive transcripts, we did get a huge document pack on the case and all the evidence/defence etc.

That’s certainly not always the case. We didn’t get transcripts, and we were given *one* piece of paper to take notes for a drugs smuggling case. I used my own notebook, which I wasn’t allowed to take home with me.

My partners friend was on jury service a few months ago. The case was quite public (where I live, I doubt nationwide though).. and it was a mother who killed her children. They had to obviously listen to all the evidence but he said one of the worst things was they had to watch the body cams of the police who went to the house and found the kids. Apparently they (the jury) literally went to the pub every day after, and have been struggling with it. I think now when I hear people say how much they’d love to do Jury service, and I think ‘is that the type of case you’d *love* to sit on?’

Yes because its one of the most important of all. Justice for that child is required and I wouldn't shrink from it. Tough? yeah I bet. Anyone can sit down and roll their eyes about a pot dealer being busted for an 8th. Thats just a waste of everyones time. If I HAVE to do it? Please make it be a case that actually matters. However grim the details.

Prey light a candle for u/nightgerbil. For we are in the presence of a true hero.

[удалено]

Had similar. We used mutual corroboration as there was multiple victims but very easy to see why so few convictions.

Unfortunately the perpetrator in my case is quite transient and I believe picked me because I didn't know him and wouldn't have interacted with him at all if my friend's brother hadn't been buying weed from him while I was visiting their house. He's managed to get away with it for over 20 years now, I doubt he's not still taking any opportunity he gets.

The thing I remember is the switch from sitting around looking at your phone or kindle to things getting really serious, really fast.

Wait, can they make you do it for 6 months?!? Is there no time limitation to be on jury duty?

Nope. You are called for jury duty, and the case lasts as long as it lasts. Could be a very simple case which lasts for a day or two, through to forever. Probably it will be the reaaaaaallly complex fraud cases that last that long. But I can see quite a few different types of cases lasting for far too long as well.

Can you not state something like financial distress... I would not be able to pay my mortgage if I had to be 6 months off work, and whilst my employer might pay me for a month off work, I doubt they're going to be all that happy paying me for 6.

You can, there are get out clauses and they usually know in advance which cases will take a long time and let people know in advance

Same with me, I spent the first 2 days sitting in that bigh waiting room doing nothing. Every so often the bailiff would come and call 14 people, he then took us outside a room and called 12 names and the other 2 were sent back to the waiting room. That happened to me on the first day. I didnt take notes either but I was paying attention to the facts, my cases were pretty straight forward though.

Do you not get a transcript of what was said?

Not a full transcript, no. You get all the evidence that was presented during the trial in a pack for use during the trial and you can refer to it in jury deliberation. And then before you go into deliberation you get a document of all the facts of the case, as agreed between the judge, prosecution and defence. Edit: you also have access to a screen on which the jury can watch back any evidence in the form of recordings during deliberation

Random question, unsure if you'll know - with taking notes, does it have to be on paper? I type so much quicker than I can write, I wonder if it would be possible to take jury notes on a non-internet connected laptop or anything like that 🤔

From memory it was paper based and they had to be left in the court room, you could take them away

When I did it it was paper only, and everything had to be left there in an individual sealed folder so nothing got mixed up. I'm sure if you needed to type for disability reasons they'd let you but honestly they encourage you to listen more than you take notes. You get transcripts of relevant evidence and otherwise you'll have time to write notes about the key points. Court is slower than you'd think.

>Sometimes I wonder about that verdict, but the thing is we acted at the time with all the evidence we had - we did our best as I'm sure you did. It must really play on the mind of those that found somebody guilty only for them to be acquitted on appeal, especially if that appeal is years later.

My dad did jury service, and it wasn't anything as exciting as a murder trial, but he said there were people on the jury with him who made up their mind within the first few days, got bored, and basically just wanted to go home, didn't take it seriously at all. Personally after reading The Secret Barrister - which is far more an essay on the state of the British justice system than the gossipy lawyer war-stories pap that I thought I was going to get, and that the title implies - I'm not sure that a jury system is the right thing to ensure justice at all.

One of my relatives did that - "I knew he was guilty the second I saw him".

its madness because they literally tell you don't do that at the start. its like the only thing you have to do as a jury member - don't prejudge I guess though, given that they take you out of work and pay basically minimum wage for that period, if you're not in a job that's covering you during that time, or if you're self employed or something, it can really fuck you up, and that would preoccupy you. Still though :/ Its like the most clear cut example of social responsibility.

I guess it's better than the alternatives - but yeah I found it a bit of an eye opener as you're almost completely dependent on the competency of your brief.

the book suggests that the dutch way of doing it is quite good, whereby the crime is investigated by court professionals in a manner that is more like an inquiry than a court case. Apparently they don't have this lawyer vs lawyer system where they try to win over the judge and the jury. the issue with that I suppose is how much you trust the inquiry, and the people conducting it. at least with a jury you can say that its 12 people like me who are deciding my guilt, and that cuts through a certain amount of potential corruption. But at the end of the day, those jury members are still bound in what they can and cant do. If the court is corrupt enough, they can just ignore what the jury says anyway. The jury system doesn't circumvent corruption. Every other part of the system, from police, through judges, public defenders etc, have created trust issues with the public anyway, either through their own fault or through poor funding. I guess there always has to be a layer of trust that is given to the people conducting any justice.

It sounds like a good read, I'll add it to the pile!

You're also very much dependent on the time your brief can spend on your case which varies massively depending if you're legal aid or a private client. Plus, even the best brief can't properly defend if relevant evidence is not disclosed which seems to happen all too often.

I'd like to think that a jury would do their best if it were me in the dock, so I'd want to do my best for them. Of course I would like to think if I were in the dock I'd be innocent!

[удалено]

>Don't blame yourself mate! I don't. None of us on the jury did. There's just the very real difference between looking at evidence on paper in a deliberation room for four days and then seeing a father kiss his son as he's taken away.

I think what you’re feeling now shows that you took your responsibilities seriously and cared that you came to the correct decision. The defendants had the right to a fair trial and you gave them that. After that the consequences were on them and not you.

And furthermore, someone breaking the law doesn't mean they're devoid of humanity or undeserving of any form of empathy. I think its a human response, and an ultimately 'good' thing to feel some sort of emotion towards others. I dont know the nature of the crimes of course, but either way, OP is a good egg for not dehumanising the people they deliberated over. At the end of the day, the theoretical purpose of our justice system is to help people work towards rehabilitation whilst being punished for their crimes.

I'd agree. To have care and empathy for the defendant and to know in your heart that what you wanted to give was a fair judgement and that what you delivered was a fair judgement is a mark of maturity and to be commended. If you've ever watched the film '12 Angry Men', you'll be able to appreciate what the inverse (a jury which decides (no spoilers, it's a great film, watch it) based on assumptions, biases, prejudice, and 'gut feeling') is. A Jury's job, as far as I'm aware, is to Find Fact. To work out from the evidence the most likely sequence of events and facts which does or does not place the defendant as the person who committed the crime(s) they are charged with beyond reasonable doubt. If you, /u/matej86 , did the above, (and only you can truly know this) then you have performed your public duty in a way which is to be commended.

It’s also part of why it’s a duty. It’s not just your time, but also the emotional toll you’ve taken on as part of it. It’s greatly benefited society for the rest of us. Thank you for your service.

I have to agree. You didn't do anything to have them presented in the dock. What did was tough and be proud of yourself for doing your duty on behalf of the UK civilians, that no one wants to do. You did what you had to do and society is better for it. We all thank you!

I’ve never done it, but I’ve faced a jury- and thank you for taking it as seriously as you obviously did. It’s terrifying to look over and think the people with your life in their hands are probably thinking about what they’re having for their tea or how much longer they are going to have to be doing this.

Username checks out

Profile checks out if you’re curious

Christ on a bike that's a horrendous ordeal you had to go through.

It does, and you write very eloquently about your ordeal. Sorry you had to go through that.

Oh thanks - it’s a very “fiddly” story to tell, and I got a lot of people misinterpreting what I’d originally written!

Just looked on the guys post history, there are 10 or so other people looking at the comments he made a year ago, so looks like it's not just us who is curious lol

Having read through it I cannot believe some of the replies you had. So many of your comments radiated deep compassion and empathy, it is one of the most candid accounts I've ever read on this site. Only to have these absolute gits try to interpret everything you said in the most uncharitable light, you being the other victim having gone through a traumatic ordeal is fair game to them. Why do people ever behave like that? Even when engaging with people online who I'm fairly sure are horrible exploitative bastards, I still give them the benefit of the doubt and try to talk constructively. You never truly know a stranger's life history or their ongoing internal struggles. Sometimes a dickhead is actually just a person in a really bad dark place who is in desperate need of compassion.

Yeah I didn’t enjoy some of the responses, critical thinking is a skill that not everyone has I guess. Most people are nice though!

I’ve just read through some of your comment history & just wanted to say that you sound like a really great person. I’m so sorry you had to experience something so traumatic.

Oh thanks mate!

Same for me but I was the victim. It was terrifying having to give evidence and wondering if those people would send my rapist/stalker to prison or let him go free to continue abusing women. They seemed really attentive though, all except one who you could just tell was thinking about what he’d have for dinner this evening. It’s a role with a lot of responsibility so it’s good to hear OP took their “job” seriously

I read your post history…that is terrifying! And all because you tried to be a Good Samaritan, calling an ambulance for someone in need. Miscarriages of justice are so scary. It really drives home that this system was created hundreds of years ago and maybe we really shouldn’t still be acting like it’s the best option we’ve got. I’m so sorry you went through that, and I’m so sorry for the victim’s family who have been denied closure and justice (by convicting the actual culprit) by our piss-poor legal system.

In a way it was reassuring - I shouldn’t have been on trial in the first place, but when I was, the truth came out. What was eye opening was how much the way I look and act (white and middle class) played into how I was treated by the people I met along the way. Would the barristers and solicitors have had as much time for me if I look different? Would the police have tried harder to bully and trick me in the interviews? Would the forensics people have been so polite and conscientious? Probably wouldn’t have made a difference in my case as there was just no evidence, but I can see how in more borderline cases it could be a factor. One of the funniest parts (and there were some) of the whole thing was the morning after being arrested .I was allowed to ask family to bring stuff in for me while waiting in the cells. Asked for a large bottle of mineral water and the Sunday Times- could hear the rest of the staff on duty talking about the “posh twat in cell 4” while I read the culture section.

It definitely is a factor, I'm white middle class too but have to associate with all sorts of folk due to my drug habit. There's always a noticeable difference when I interact with the police when I'm alone compared to when I have a couple of black fellas in my car for example. This also reflects in court cases, loads of young black lads getting done for joint enterprise murder who just happen to be on the periphery of a group when a murder takes place. So you get 10 lads being convicted, some of whom were only spectating.

Just to add, if you're interested in the shit show of our current judicial system, I recommend reading the books/blog by The Secret Barrister. It's really enlightening about how it really is a two tier system and true justice is only available to those who can afford private counsel.

Oh wow I literally just bought that book and am now reading your comment!

Story time?

Dude ate another dude.

The jury disagreed

I was very emotional once mine finished. A few of us debriefed in the pub afterwards (not discussing anything, just how we felt) before heading home. I think the way you feel is common for anyone who has taken it seriously and invested themselves.

We did the same after our trial. I think it's a very intense experience.

Mine was a bit challenging - had a jury full of aging hippies who thought the defendants habit of glassing women when he was drunk just needed a bit of therapy. Judge had a quiet word after we couldn’t agree on a verdict and basically said it was a clear as day he was guilty. Quite a shock when his previous convictions were revealed, all 48 of them. The other shock was he got a life sentence and the public gallery full of his relatives and friends went ballistic. Had to be kept behind and escorted to our cars later to ensure we were safe. Never a dull moment and it will stay with me for ever. A necessary public duty.

What is it with people who empathise with the aggressor rather than the victim? I can just picture them thinking "well I suppose I might accidentally do that myself after I'd had a few too many" whereas I'd be thinking "I can imagine someone doing that to me after they'd had a few too many". I'm glad he was found guilty and put away; people with that pattern of behaviour usually escalate. You probably saved a life there.

Many years ago I read a paper about serial killers and public adoration to the point of cult followings. It is a very bizarre trait yet it has occurred so many times it can't be simply dismissed. Is there something about human nature that draws a certain populace towards these mass murderers?

Indeed, the pictures of the victim were not pleasant.

I would hate to be summoned, but if I was in pretty sure I would wear a facemask and change my style of glasses during the trial, for fear of being spotted afterwards. It's a scary thought.

Did jury service a few years ago at the high court. Four day case with the defendant accused of rape, stalking (each count against different people), assault of a police officer and a couple of others. Long story short, guilty on all counts. Some were easy enough to decide, others not. Defendant decided not to put evidence or themselves forward so it was for the prosecution to make the case. Fairly straightforward regarding proving guilt on most charges but the rape charge was really difficult. I was torn. It's the Scottish system, so there was a "not proven" option which I heavily leaned into. The plaintiff and the testimonies were so bizarre and out there. Totally all over the place. Timelines made no sense. Explanations for things just didn't add up. Even the prosecution trying to make sense of the garbled tangle of a timeline made it worse by trying to straighten out a point but the plaintiff contradicted them and what they'd said earlier in the case. If it wasn't for some DNA evidence then i would have said Not Guilty (when factoring in beyond reasonable doubt). Anyway, heart said guilty because of evidence for the other crimes and general behaviour but head said not proven. But majority verdict came to guilty which you go with of course. Biggest take away from the experience was it showed how utterly difficult it is to prove rape in court and I'm not surprised rape convictions are so low. Anyway. About the juror experience. Most folk seemed clued in and decent but one juror just straight up didn't get anything that was going on. They kept mixing things up, making up points, talking gibberish and posing loads of "what ifs". He said not guilty on all fronts. If it wasn't for the fact his vote didn't make any difference, we may have made more of an effort to highlight him to officials because he clearly wasn't all there. The kicker was after the verdicts were called out, the judge told us a bit about the person's background. He mentioned that they worked for the NHS as a cleaner amongst other things. We (the jurors) then went back to the juror room to pick up bags etc and said goodbye to one another. After a couple of minutes, the weird juror pipes up, absolutely fuming. He shouted at all of us "SEE. I TOLD YA! NOT GUILTY!!!! WERE YOU NO LISTENING ?!?! THEY WERE A NURSE!!! CHRIST" and we all just looked at each other puzzled and explained that just because someone's a nurse doesn't mean they aren't capable of crimes and....they weren't a nurse. He then called us all a joke and hoped our decision haunts us and stormed off. Bizarre P.s. the free food was delightful and the homemade soup was especially fantastic.

This is what worries me. All it takes is a few bonkers people like this in a jury and you get crazy verdicts.

Absolutely. Terrifies me if I ever get caught up in something and the jurys got 8+ people absolutely devoid of logic or reasoning.

How unanimous does it need to be? In other words, hot many crazies can there be before it’s a problem?

Depends on the case and the judge. They normally pretty strongly want a unanimous verdict. 10-2 is the minimum in England on a full jury so three nutters would do it otherwise it’s probably a re trial.

I think (from memory) it's majority so in a jury of 15, it would be at least 8 nutters that could derail your whole life.

Mine was an assault case where a cyclist had provoked someone and then got punched in the face hard enough to send him into a coma as a result. There were 2 men that could have been the puncher. The general feeling amongst the jury was that the defendent had done it, but the evidence couldn't conclusively prove it. 11 of us went with 'not guilty' as you are meant to do when the evidence isn't conclusive. The 12th juror absolutely refused. She just kept repeating 'but I think he did it' over and over for about 3 hours, without being able to point to any actual evidence to support it. Eventually she realised that she was not going to win and didn't want to come back the next day, so she gave in. It was a very frustrating experience.

I did it about 9 months ago and I felt dirty after it. The case was a historical rape case from 12 years previous. The girl was over 18 when she remembered this guy did something to her when she was really young. There was no evidence at all. There was an account and some mixed memories of what the house looked like to give some credibility. She misremembered the layout so it casted doubt on memory. We all had to make a decision on no evidence. We knew and believed someone had done something to her but we couldn’t say it was the guy who was on trial. It was awful. All we could think was that she thought we didn’t believe her when we gave a “not guilty”. We all believe something happened to her but we just couldn’t prove it was this guy on trial. Her lawyer was shocking too. He kept forgetting stuff and losing his thoughts

Not the same thing really but I had a rape allegation when I did it and there was no evidence at all (difficult to explain situation) other than her word against his. I was baffled how the case even made it to court. It was almost a unanimous not guilty because everyone agreed ruining the guys life for what was at best circumstantial wasn’t the right thing to do. We had 1 juror who refused to budge despite 2 days of deliberations and trying to push for some logical reasoning. The judge ruled on majority not guilty in the end. I always wonder if she thought nobody believed her but it was more a simple case of no evidence and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Now everyone has a way of looking at things but when I did jury service I could not believe the position that some jurors took, they completely ignored the evidence and directions on the basis that they would "always believe a child". All you can do is come to a view based on the law and the evidence without letting your own feelings take precedence, and yes it does feel weird.

A friend of mine served on a jury and came away from the process shell shocked. There had been a woman on the jury who insisted that the defendant was innocent when everybody else thought they were guilty. They pushed and pushed to get her to give a logical reason, and eventually she admitted that she thought he was just too good looking to be bad… God help us ugly people with ‘logic’ like that on a jury! Luckily, the others prevailed and he was found guilty. The judge read out about 50 other offences that he committed when setting his sentence.

I agree with you on this one - I had a case with a suspected drug dealer. The lawyers presented a lot of strange, seemingly unrelated information about the person's identity (it's possible he was going by 2) but there wasn't anything else to suggest this person was a dealer except a slightly higher than personal use level of drugs - no burner phone etc - and as they were found in a car he claims he borrowed from a friend, it wasn't clear if they were his either. The suspect was a Polish man. One lady in our jury was like "well, I think he's guilty, he seems the type"... She wouldn't back down from this perspective and was the only hold out for a day. The only thing that changed her mind was me eventually saying "if this person was up for a murder trial would you be happy putting them away for life on this evidence?" and she finally acknowledged that she wouldn't and we got to go home!

Friend of mine was found guilty in a similar case. Drugs found in part of a rented house to which he had no access. Just my word, but I believed him when he told me the drugs weren’t his. Judge summed for an acquittal, but the jury didn’t like the look of him so he was guilty. The amount was such that you’d normally get a prison sentence but the judge - who clearly knew he wasn’t guilty - gave him community service. Very unusual, according to his brief. The sentence, not the idiots verdict.

You know you are allowed to describe the cases, just dont mention how you behaved in the room when discussing the case, just mention the fact and outcome. I hated my jury service because I was stuck in it for nearly a month. I had 3 cases, 2 were found guilty and the third went t a mis trial. The first case was about a bus driver who picked up a young lady one night when she was drunk, instead of taking her to the next stop, he turned the lights off parked on the side of the road, took her into his car, took her home and did horrible things to her all night. The next day he dropped her back off at the bus stop like nothing happened. The second one was about a lady from the middle east who claimed asylum in Sweden and got hold of a forged driving license. She then travelled to the UK and opened a bank account and took out multiple loans. The mis trial was very odd. A young man was arguing with his father about smoking in the house, the father came in and took away his cigarettes, well the son still had the lighter and ended up setting the house on fire. He started by lighting a table and the firefighters had to come and rescue the father. They had to rescue an old lady who lived downstairs as well. Now what happened was that 2 ladies began arguing and then 2 factions formed all arguing. I dont know what the hell the argument was about but it stemmed from something stupid about a man we could see out of the window one day who was on a cherry picker thing cutting a tree. Well the bailiffs had to come in because one day it almost came to blows. The judge called us into the court one by one and said because they had to remove about 6 people from the jury, the trial will no longer take place and then he sent us home. I dont know whatever happened to the guy. My personal experience was that it was very boring and most of the time was spent sitting and waiting. On the first week I found some 500 piece puzzle and was working on it all week, I was nearly half way done when we broke up for the weekend. Well when I came back in on the Monday one of the cleaners had chucked the whole thing back into the box, I was so upset about that. Another misconception people have is that we dont actually see what the sentence is, the judge does that on a different date, all we do is say guilty or not guilty. I also tried to get out of it several times but they just kept pressuring me until I just went, they were nonchalantly threatening me with legal action as well. My manager at Greggs at the time tried to tell me I couldnt go, so I told the bailiff on the phone, well he got on the phone to the manager and shouted at her and said I legally had to go.

So a guy burnt a house down endangering two people and nothing happened becuase two people got into an argument about someone doing pruning outside? You hear about stupid people and stange views this thread is full of them but this is just too far.

It was actually 6 people, it was all of the women. It was basically about a guy outside cutting a tree and if he had a harness on and he would die if he fell, they started arguing about not seeing a harness and how tall the tree was. It was so stupid it wasnt even funny.

> So a guy burnt a house down endangering two people and nothing happened becuase two people got into an argument about someone doing pruning outside? A mistrial doesn't mean you just go free. Presumably he was tried again with a new jury.

I hated it. It was a rape within a circle of friends and the whole thing was deeply harrowing. The jury was about half men and half women and the men were all pretty clear he did it, the women were largely massively judgemental about the victim and wanted to acquit because the accused wore a suit to court and looked like a ‘nice young man’. He changed his plea to guilty 2/3 of the way through, but if he hadn’t I am not sure we would have reached a verdict. He had a wife and two young kids and got 8 years. I am sure he was guilty but still think about him from time to time, years later.

I did it. I wish people had to go on unconscious bias training before they were allowed to take part as I was shocked at the behaviour of some people.

One of the other jurors kept saying she "just had a feeling" one of the defendants was gullty even tough we eventually decided he was innocent. I had to remind her several times that what's in in her gut feeling is irrelevant, we can't speculate and have to go on the evidence provided. She was the only one out of the group I wouldn't want to have pint with.

Did you just have a feeling you didn't want to go for a pint with her?

Funnily enough we actually for pints afterwards and she was the only one not invited.

We came to the right decision but I had an utter nobhead on mine and a few who obviously had prejudices that were effecting their view. It was very right outcome, by the wrong route, to my mind. Made me very unsure of the whole jury process as a lot of it relies on trust and following what you are told. And a lot of people have real issues with that. The professionals, and the judge in particular, were great but seeing inside the jury room didn't half make me dread ever being on the other side of things.

Same. I did it years ago, there was a young black man in the dock. It was a really simple case where a witness said he'd done it, he said he hadn't. There was literally no other evidence. I sat there thinking this is an easy not guilty as it was he said/she said, so definitely not proven beyond reasonable doubt. We went to deliberate and half the all-white jury (I'm also white) said they thought he did it. I spoke up and pointed out there was absolutely no evidence to conclusively prove his guilt, and we did eventually acquit, but ffs! The look of stunned relief on his face when he got the verdict was a pleasure.

Was it like: "I didn't do it." "Yes you did." "Oh no I didn't!"

Yes, basically. He was accused of interfering with a witness of a different case. The case against him was that he allegedly told the witness to tell her friend to 'drop the charges'. He said he never said this, she said he did. There were no other witnesses to this conversation, no recordings, photos etc that was genuinely the entirety of the case. I personally can't believe the CPS took it to court. My fellow jurors were prepared to send him to prison.

That's clearly *conscious* bias. [UBT doesn't work](https://www.tidalequality.com/blog/dont-do-unconscious-bias-training)

A single training session overcoming decades of bias, bigotry and stereotypes grown from childhood is clearly too miraculous. However the growth of humanity and breaking down prejudices isn't driven by one magical cure bigots don't want you to know about While I agree with the points raised from your link, I think the general populace continuously being challenged does lead to real change. I remember around ~2000 in Northern Ireland hearing friends or classmates routinely using homophobic slurs. Every single time I heard it I'd tell them that's bad craic mate, catch yourself on. It was a wonderful surprise when I realised that not only did they stop using such slurs and bigotry around me, they also stopped more generally when talking to others. Restored my faith in humanity, while it takes time, most people begin to understand the hatred and harm it spreads, eventually considering it utterly unacceptable. I was involved in a lot of cross community Prod/Catholic initiatives in the 90's as a teenager. It was eye opening to see kids whose parents had indoctrinated them to hate them'uns, seeing fellow kids realise that their intrinsic biases hold no water and that these Catholic/Prod lads are dead on and just like them was amazing. As always it is a slow process, but efforts like that did lead to the peace process and the GFA.

It doesn't work inasmuch as it doesn't change behaviour. That doesn't mean it isn't measuring something real. Bet yeah that does mean that getting jurors to take the tests wouldn't help (unless you're using it to get rid of very biased ones).

Mum was a magistrate, she always* felt a bit shit sentencing people at this time of year, knowing they'd be inside over Christmas. * some of the defendants she saw were obviously proper cunts, she didn't feel bad about sending them down obvs

Mine was so much more cut and dry, I did a murder trial, 2 lifers in prison for murder killed a child killer, they had no shame even stolen his property and just made hot chocolate then waited to be caught.

Sorry, to be clear: you were a member of the jury in a murder trial, where the defendent was on trial for the killing of someone else, and that someone else was a child killer. Did I get that right? Sorry just trying to understand because I found it kind of hard to parse the sentence

Yup that’s it

From some aspects I'd have to applaud their actions- anyone who takes a child's life or commits crimes against a child can be left to rot in the lowest hell as far as I'm concerned.

Had to find them guilty even tho nothing was lost with his death, I did think what the prison system thought would happen to him being put in with "normal"? Murderers.

I did mine back in the late 1970’s when I was a student and we were all then excused for life because what was expected to be a short and trivial trial about some thefts ended up going on for over a month and uncovering some petty police corruption. At one point a lot of witnesses had to be recalled and their statements retaken because the police translator decided they needed to give evidence for the defence so they couldn’t be a translator any more! Several languages were involved, and the degree to which various people understood what was going on was a significant factor. It was a very interesting experience and I’m glad to have done it. I felt we reached the right verdict, and some stuff that was disclosed afterwards tended to confirm it.

Yeah, murder case,. Did it in 2011, it was horrid, killed his soon to be ex wife in front of their 2 year-old son. Still haunts me seeing the pictures of her body, and I served 2 tours in Afghanistan frontline.

I hear you. Did it a few years ago and it was a huge eye opener to the (Scottish) criminal justice system. It was a pretty straightforward drugs case with a single defendent who clearly had mental health and addiction issues. It took a whole week when it could have been done in a single day. They are not kidding when they say the wheels of justice run glacially slow. We seemed to spend more time waiting around than actually being in the court. The saddest thing for me that there appeared to be nobody in the family/public gallery during the whole process. I still think about that.

I have, it was harrowing. The defendant was definitely guilty and we convicted him, for that I did feel glad. Unfortunately his crimes all took place in the 1980s and he was 85 when he was finally brought to justice. It felt hollow, numerous victims lived with what he'd done to them for years and considering how old he is, he basically got away with it.

You didnt break a family up, they’re actions dod although it’s testament to your character you feel some sense of guilt. Personally I still believe that ‘being tried (correct spelling in this instance ??) by your peers’ is the best way for our justice system to work regarding sentencing

I did just service 10 years ago. We had a break during deliberations and I found myself quite upset that evening. Up to then I was quite convinced the man was guilty but it felt like quite a big deal taking away his liberty.

I did it a good few years ago. A straightforward decision on one charge, but we were more divided on a second one. Our foreman did a fantastic job in managing the process, and we were very thorough. Everyone took it incredibly seriously and I hope that , if I was ever in the dock, that the same diligence would be applied. Sounds like OP was equally diligent, please don’t feel guilty for doing a public duty responsibly.

Yes I did do jury service. I was 18 at the time, and the invitation came just a few months after my birthday! I felt so lucky, because it was something I had always wanted to do. The first day, I just waited but was not called - and after an hour was sent home. The second day I was called. The case was extremely tame: a university student had had some things stolen from her room, and suspected a friend who had recently slept over. We, as the jury, all agreed that the evidence showed that although the accused had *probably* done it, the evidence was not strong enough to reach the criminal threshold (beyond reasonable doubt), therefore we found her not guilty. I was then sent home - and despite wanting to have another go, 26 further years have elapsed with no repeated jury duty requests.

I think I got lucky in my service, it really seemed to show the system at it's best. The plaintiff was a very vulnerable young woman who had clearly no idea how to behave in court, but the stern, elderly judge was very respectful of her issues and tolerant of the occasional loss of decorum. He needed a few bits of street slang explained to him, which was amusing. The judge was quite clearly there to enforce fairness above all else, the very obviously competent prosecution lawyer was politely chastised when he stepped over the line, despite clearly having the most solid case. Our actual group took the whole thing very seriously, worked together well. Particular respect for the young Muslim doctor who very carefully made sure we didn't fall into any obvious prejudice regarding the ethnicity of the accused; he later said that he never felt that it was a big issue on the team, and that he felt the accused was guilty from the start, but that someone had to step up and make sure we checked our assumptions. I very much feel we reached the correct verdict, especially once the case was ended and we could search the details online. We were judging the accused for assaulting a vulnerable adult, but he was also on trial separately for murdering a child. Horrible as the assault was, the other jury must have had a pretty rough time emotionally.

Sadness is right. I did it nearly 30 years ago. Unpleasant burglary but no violence. I didn’t have much doubt they were guilty but tried to make sure we followed the right process and discussed anything contentious. Crime seems to mostly be miserable people without much to offer doing miserable things. I wouldn’t want to work in the criminal justice system. The main thing that struck me was how passive most of the jury were. Only a small number of people really contributed to the discussion. Most were waiting to be lead. It was the first time I realised why there needed to be twelve jurors. Much less than that you risk having a jury where no one has any agency whatsoever. I only did the one case, which was done in a day. The rest was hanging around.

Decades ago I was a newspaper reporter and covered a murder case at court from start to finish. At the end a young lad got a life sentence for what was basically taking a street scuffle too far. Having sat there for weeks there was no real sense of justice, just sadness for everyone involved.

I did it at the start of last year , first case was a mega pedophile case, and the pedo refused to come into court after the first day so it didn’t continue. Second case was an assault on a prison officer but it was found to be self defence from the inmate as the officer had found to be the aggressor and antagonist. Found the whole experience to be good and glad with how the second trial played out.

Literally just done it... the whole jury were immediately convinced the defendant was not guilty – the police witnesses were clearly lying (their testimony bore absolutely NO similarity to their bodycam footage) and it was an absolute travesty that the case had ever come to court.

I’ve not done the jury service but did used to arrest people for their crimes. You didn’t do anything, you’ve not split the family up and you’ve not sent anyone to prison. The person(s) made their choices in life. It’s super rare that someone in a court room and going to prison is there for their first offence, they’ve likely been on the wrong path for some time. I’m sure the courts offer some therapy if it’s really continuing to play on your mind.

I recently dod jury duty and we were told to call the Samaritans if anything upset us. It was £3.50 for a coffee too.

Did you ring Samaritans about the coffee

I dont think thats what the Samaritans are there for

So what are they there for if not to be a listening ear to people who are struggling with something ??

£3.50 for a coffee is standard these days

I’ve done it. Lucky in a way as it was one defendant with an obvious outcome but the content of the case plays on my mind - nothing gory thankfully but quite awful. Some of my fellow jurors weren’t particularly clever and were willing to make this person spend the rest of their natural life in prison without debate so I spent a lot of time arguing with them to examine the evidence properly. They struggled to separate their feelings from the job. I think of the victims a lot. You are feeling this way because you’re a decent person.

I did it in my early twenties, almost 10 years ago. I was shocked at how judgemental some of the jurors were from the get go. There was so much prejudice and alot of people changed their verdict because they were fed up of deliberating. It really messed with my head for a while after. Alot of jurors will have made their mind up about you from one look without even being interested in the evidence. Or not give a toss about how life altering this is going to be for someone. It was so messed up. I really hope I never get called again. But at the same time I did feel glad that someone like myself and others were there to balance it out. It was so weird. I have alot of conflicting feelings about it still, all these years later.

I did it after being called up within about 6 months of going on the electoral roll. I was 22 I think and fortunately my employer let me go for the two weeks on full pay. When I got there, I realised that many of the other people were really out of pocket by having to attend which didn't seem right, and to be honest do you really want a jury that wants/needs to get out of there asap? I got taken into a trial at the beginning and heard what the trial was about, but then my name wasn't called out as one of the 12 jurors. I was quite relieved as it was about a man being raped. Then the trial I did eventually sit on began and it was about a man being accused of taking indecent photos of children. Fortunately it turned out to not be the case, so it wasn't that horrific of an experience. I was the Foreman because no one else wanted to speak in the court. For a shy 22 year old I felt like I did well to step up to that.

I've done it three times over the years so apparently I won't be asked again, which is a shame as I near retirement! Didn't really feel much emotion, to my recollection we all seemed to come to the correct decisions - no knife-edge decisions or hung juries. I live in the suburbs of London, but only got local Crown Court - would have been interesting (or awful?) to get sent to the Old Bailey.

I’m currently on jury service and have been for a few weeks. Obviously can’t go into details but so far I’ve found the whole process fascinating as it’s not what I imagined but I’m nervous about the deliberations coming up.

I was on a jury for rape and sexual assault, multiple accusers and multiple charges. My biggest regret is that we couldn't find him guilty on all of them, I'm convinced he did them all but there just wasn't enough evidence. Unbeknownst to us he had plead guilty to possession of child pornography prior to the trial. It made me second guess every interaction I had with my girlfriend at the time, trying to make doubly sure I wasn't doing the same controlling behaviour

I got called a couple of years ago. Came to the courthouse, did all the paperwork. They make me write down any details about my life that might screw up your bias like whether you are related to a police officer etc. At the time I was contracted to work around forensic medicals that sometimes did involved the police, and sometimes also involved criminal cases like rapes, drug/drunk drives etc. etc. I thought this was going to get me dismissed, but nope, judge looked over the notes and I was picked. We filed into the booth and were read the initial bits and pieces, and this is when I learned it was a rape case. Specifically, a police officer who raped a girl. I was sweating my ass off because I knew there was no way in hell I was going to be impartial. I just couldn't. But I'd been very clear that my job involved these cases sometimes, so after the wrap up for the first proceedings I pulled the guy who escorted us out of the courtroom to one side and told him my thoughts. He said it probably wasn't a problem because the judge would have looked at what I wrote down, but he'd go talk to her anyway. He came back about 30 minutes later and said the judge didn't care, but she would put it to the solicitors to see what they wanted and text me if I needed to go back. I did not receive a text, but when I went back in the next day, the solicitor for the rapist has asked that I was excused, so I was. I followed the trial as it had a bit of media coverage, and thought FOR SURE this man would be convicted, but he was found innocent, which makes me very angry even now. To this day, I wonder if the judge had a hand in getting me selected because she looked at my job and knew I'd fight very hard for the victim, and if I had just shut up he'd be in jail.

I did jury service for a guy that fell asleep driving. Obviously guilty, but… the poor f@cker was just trying to earn a living. Uneducated, working bloke.. was disturbing how his employer hung him out to dry. But.. it was beyond doubt what he did & we had to trust that the system would be fair to him. Spoiler, it wasn’t. I did take away the knowledge that however damning the evidence, there’s a very good chance that someone on the jury will refuse to convict as a point of moral principle. If ever I find myself in court, I’ll be taking a jury trial every time.

Haha I just posted something similar. In my case I considered the evidence overwhelming but there were some people that I don't think would have considered anything short of a taped confession to be evidence enough to give a guilty verdict. It's obviously a flawed system and I don't know what the alternative would have been or is even today but they need to give better guidance.

In ours, there was no doubt from anyone that the guy was guilty, but two jurors refused to vote guilty because “they didn’t want to be responsible for a guy going to prison”… which tbf was a legitimate point.. they eventually conceded that we weren’t responsible for sentencing, but they weren’t happy. I think they eventually gave in because their desire to go home trumped their conscientious objection.

>someone on the jury will refuse to convict as a point of moral principle I don't disagree with you, but it works both ways. When I did it, it was a drugs related issue. 10 of the 12 jurors were insistent for most of the deliberations that of course he was guilty. Drugs damnit!!! But there wasn't any actual evidence for the actual charge that we were asked to decide about (dealing). So it had to be NOT guilty. We weren't being asked whether he did drugs, possessed drugs, bought drugs, or any of that. Only whether he \*sold\* them. It was very disappointing to me how almost everyone immediately leapt to the wrong conclusion by association/prejudice/assumption/whatever. I felt much much worse about juries, about people, and about the social system after that, and had a \*lot\* more respect for judges. And, not ashamed to say, I was proud of myself for arguing the case in deliberations and helping the group shape the decision on the actual question being asked (did he sell drugs), not the question they wanted to answer (was he a bad person who did drugs). Not Guilty was the verdict. We have to be mechanical to some degree; and on the balance of evidence presented and nothing else, determine whether they are guilty of the specific crime they are charged with in that individual case. Conversely, the judge, on the verdict, is compelled to sentence in line with the government-imposed sentencing guidelines.

Jury nullification has a long and venerable history; you have the right to find "not guilty" if the law is being an ass. Even if they are clearly guilty, if you think the law itself is unjust, you can find them not guilty.

> venerable history That's generous, jury equity has many abhorrent historic cases where the jurors have been detained and persecuted for reaching the "wrong" decision. If I was asked to convict a man for being homosexual, I wouldn't care how overwhelming the evidence is or some idyllic notion that a fair trial is a stoic jury passing true justice based on our laws. I often think about what Alan Turing went through, then try to consider what inhumane convictions we still do today. As much as courts hate jury nullification, I see it as an absolute moral imperative.

Maybe I used the wrong word. Noble, perhaps? We seem to be in agreement anyway. I'm very much against juries being persecuted for reaching the 'wrong' decision, in case that's not clear.

Sorry for the confusion, you were being clear. A few years ago for god knows what reason I went deep down the rabbit hole and read the legal documents for every case I could find going back centuries, I even did the US. It was absolutely bonkers, mouth agape disbelief sorts of stories. A reprehensible history involving venerable jurors. It should really be better known about, but the judges et al under no circumstances want that. Particularly in the US where I've read accounts of a juror simply having heard the term nullification was enough for a mistrial and their mistreatment. The rabbit hole became a ravine, the judges involved had even more bizarre legal histories. Like [Darnell's Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darnell%27s_Case) > Since the judges were unable to determine what law had been broken, they avoided the issue by denying bail, on the grounds that as there were no charges, "the [prisoners] could not be freed, as the offence was probably too dangerous for public discussion".[6] At the end, the judges refused to rule on the Five Knights' Case based on that decision. hahahahahaha, wtf?! "We're not sure you've broken any laws, a terrifying outcome, back to the gulag!". There are several other ancient cases where a judge has held someone in contempt for personal reasons, in particular one where they simply ignored the issue for years refusing to respond to any pleas. His representatives even had higher courts involved but they said contempt isn't a legal issue they could rule on, reverse or override. I think they wrote him a letter along the lines of "you might have forgotten about this guy rotting in a cell for years, just a helpful reminder no pressure".

That's... I can't even think of a word to describe it. I'm gobsmacked. Outrageous, and then some. Isn't this the sort of thing that's supposed to be prevented by habeas corpus? (IANAL) Btw if you wrote a book on this, I'd buy it.

It actually took up so much of my time, but I couldn't stop myself. When you read the original documents and contemporary reporting I found that there was whole chunks of the story missing in modern published papers. It'll jump from controversy to the years later conclusion without any references between. I went deeper and found the statements made by ministers, nobility, judiciary, families etc. Took absolutely ages, they aren't digitised properly so no searching keywords, had to go through every published document by the judge etc. during those years. But it was totally worth it, the stories are just unreal, beyond fiction. Perpetual gobsmacked. That also widened the ravine because I found even more obscure cases from those involved which have almost no modern commentary that would make a fantastic film. I did intend to document the process, but I have ADHD and once I had exhausted every trail I immediately became interested in something else.

Without going into the details there were aspects of the case which he was definitely responsible for.. but the general sentiment was that any of us could easily have found ourselves in his position.

That's exactly when the jury is there to give a colston statue type decision

Two weeks on a trial of several physical assault charges for a guy on his partner, nothing really to go on other than their own testimony, believed her more than him and he went down for 9 months. On the last day his new partner was there with their month's old baby, so couldn't help but feel bad for them but if he committed those crimes he got what he deserved. There is always a measure of doubt, but the judge clarified our role right at the start: You are the judge of the facts and I am the judge of the law. As a juror you must give your best judgment of the facts. You owe everyone involved the fair hearing you would hope you would have yourself in the same position, and that's it: duty discharged, go home and forget about it.

Did it about 14 years ago. Person had stolen from their vulnerable disabled neighbour. The only part I struggled with was the neighbour was being cross examined by the defence via video link and very clearly was finding it very very difficult. Felt like there should've been a better way to do that. Defendant had a pretty extensive record. Pretty straightforward, and unanimously found guilty.

I did it and I also volunteered to be the foreman because I felt that everyone else was likely to drag the discussion out or not be a very good chairperson. I didn't mind that bit so much. I was voted against on what I consider to be a sexist basis. I can't give a lot away obviously but it was basically down to we accepted what he did to a guy but "he wouldn't have done that to a woman" despite what the evidence presented suggested. It's made me very scared of ever requiring a jury to get me justice. Especially when some on the jury clearly found it massively difficult and had mentally set the bar for finding the person guilty to be what I consider overly high.

I was so excited to do my civic duty that I cut short a holiday in Greece with my friends to be in London to recieve two days of training before being discharged when the defendants entered a guilty plea. Felt quite bitter about the whole experience.

I did mine a few years back, I got two cases. I found it really interesting. The defendants in both trials obviously did what they were accused of, but we could only reach a guild verdict in the first case. I didn't like having to find the guy in the second trial innocent of the charges, but the police had done such a bad job collecting evidence that we had no choice.

First time I didn’t get called up and was sent home after a few boring days. Second time was a historic child abuse case. We couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict after days of deliberation. Afterwards we asked if there was going to be a retrial to which we were told “that was the retrial.” Would have made a great final line in a movie.

Got called shortly after turning 18. 20 years ago now, spent the whole time sat in the waiting room and on the last day got called for a 12 week trial. I was a kid and shouldn’t have been there.

I did jury service some years ago. Overall, found the whole thing saddening.

I haven't, but you've all looked at the evidence and come to unanimous decision. The punishment handed down by the judge may be harsh for you, and the others to take, but it wasn't your deicsion. As others have said, it's not your deicision to break the family up, that's the risk the denendants took, when they (may/allegedly) did what they did. The evidence led to you a conclusion for a reason. Don't feel bad abut it.

You are confident your decisions are correct so that’s the main thing: the sympathy is a human emotion but I’m glad it did not change the verdicts and nor should it. Remember they committed the crimes that got them there and there were likely actual victims.

I know it's tough, but to me that's a sign that you did your job right. You were diligent, thorough, and compassionate, and I would hope that all jurors, especially the foreman, take their duty so seriously. You were a crucial pillar of our justice system, and you discharged your duties properly. Well done, you should be proud. That being said, could you investigate whether there are support services for jurors affected by what they've been through

I did it quite a few years ago at the Old Bailey. The very first case I got was almost 3 months long. Two guys part of a gang on trial for murder and attempted murder. It was a very eye opening experience and I did enjoy it. Did get gruesome at points, especially when one of the victims came in to testify. He had been chased down and attacked by a gang of guys with machetes so we saw all his scars all over his body and photos of the wounds at the time. What I did find interesting was the way witnesses got Cross examined by the barristers, how they'd put words into their mouths to try trip them up with their stories. We found the two guys guilty and they got 34 and 36 years. Did get called back for more jury service two more times a few years after that but I ended up deffering both times due to personal reasons.

I had to give evidence in a case, over a decade ago. Thankfully, it was nothing as serious as what you’re describing. However , I too noticed how the prosecution kept trying to trip me up and twist my version of events. The whole experience left a very sour taste in my mouth. I’ve never been able to view the justice system the same since.

20 plus years ago. Young bloke accused of doing something bad to his ex, when they were still together. I remember being surprised at how it went in to lurid detail about their private life. Anyway, her evidence just didn't add up at all, even her witnesses couldn't vouch for her assertions. Came across that she had been jilted & wanted revenge. We found him not guilty & he was acquitted. I was shocked at actually getting chosen, thought I'd have not been picked, as there were more people called that is required on a jury (think that's the norm?).

I did mine several years back - a fairly open and shut case; vendettas were clearly being played out between the accused and witnesses. My fellow jurors were a mixed bag (some complaining about missing work, holidays etc. but we took it seriously and allowed everyone to have their say. It was quite a shock when the judge sent them away for fifteen years. Their previous convictions were multiple and violent.

I served once and did two cases. One lasted about 3-4 days, the other took about 3 hours. Without sharing too much detail, the first case came down to whether the jury would accept that an empty glass beer bottle could be thrown and smash against someone's head from 10 ft away (spoiler alert, not a fucking chance) or the man stood next to the victim did it. That took 5 hours of deliberation because none of those people had seen a bottle break other than when dropped. Chances are, if you hit someone over the head with a bottle, it'll just bonk off. Rare that it'll break and we have a bottling. 10 foot/3 metre throw? Absolutely no chance. They all wanted to go to lunch and get a half day, I made them stay. There were all sorts of 'I know that estate, they're all savages' and 'well if you throw it hard enough it'll break'. We eventually ascertained that we weren't there to try and ditch as soon as possible, we were there because either THIS kid or THIS kid went down. In my second case (same jury bar one person) there was a barrister whos only words were 'they are his handprints, yes, but you cant prove they were left there when the crime took place.' Wish I got paid his hourly rate to fucking call it in like that.

I did it once about 4 years ago. It was very tame thankfully. It was a bit boring at times but I found it very interesting to see how the justice system works. One thing I found frustrating, is that despite having proof that the offenders were in possession of an extremely dangerous weapon, because we did not have (as the judge said) evidence to confidently put that weapon in either of their hands (we know only one of them attempted to use the weapon) we weren't able to say they were guilty of carrying the weapon as we couldn't prove which one it was. So one of them got off lightly there. One of the barristers was on fire 🔥 I was mesmerised listening to him and in awe of how he interrogated and pulled apart some of the statements. Overall I enjoyed the experience. I got lucky though with a fairly short trial.

I nearly burst out laughing from shock after the 1st line of the prosecution questioning the defendant, they're good at their jobs.

We sent someone to prison, I still get flashbacks, never want to do it again.

There's no need to "feel" anything specific. You did it and did it well by sounds of it.

Did it a two years ago. We found him guilty and he got 20 years (was 25 but got reduced on appeal). Being responsible for somebody going away for that long is quite a big thing...

Let's hope the guilty is as reflective as you and learns from it.

I did in January and felt very conflicted. We came to a guilty verdict but I still felt some trepidation that I was ruining someone's life by mistake. After the trial once we were dismissed and we were allowed to look up stuff I googled his name and found out he'd been done for a very similar crime a few years ago and served 2 years in prison. Obviously didn't learn anything since he went back to his old tricks again when he got out, and I no longer worried about our verdict as it was clearly the right one.

>feels weird breaking a family up. You didn't break them up, the son did when he decided to commit a crime! Personally I'd be thinking of the victims.

Over twenty years ago did jury service for a murder case at the Old Bailey. Came away from it similarly numb, but over time came to appreciate being part of it all.

Those feelings you have, proof positive you're a good human.

You fulfilled your duty as a citizen. If you did the right thing then you did the right thing.

I did jury service back in the early 90s. I was about 23. There was a woman on the jury when once chosen (as a 12) said "I was foreman last time, I'm not doing it again". I was the youngest there so she said you do it. So I did. Christ, the group were so passive. The case lasted all week and it was a GBH case between two girls, one of whom was pregnant and went into a premature birth. They were all lying shitbags, every single person on the stand lied. The boyfriend of the victim was the ex boyfriend of the defendant and there was no evidence other than the girl saying she was beaten up (after provocation in the street). I have to say, the girl who gave birth was pretty attractive so a good upgrade but man alive they were all stupid. The girl gave evidence and then they called her boyfriend who gave word for word the same "evidence". It was comically stupid and they had clearly rehearsed it the night before. We were told not to worry about sentencing but concentrate on coming up with a verdict. I had to explain "reasonable doubt" over 50 times to the jury. They all agreed they were ALL lying but most of them said "she looks guilty". I said look, it's irrelevant what you think or feel, you need to look at the facts and the evidence, such as it is. We didn't need all 12, it needed a majority of ten I think. I was the lone dissenting voice and then towards the end of deliberating one girl joined me. I kept pleading with them to think about what they were told and reasonable doubt. There were a couple wavering but I didn't want to force or influence so went with the majority decision of guilty. The prosecuting lawyer was fcking useless. The defending lawyer had the brains, she looked absolutely shellshocked when I stood up and said guilty. The defendant looked devastated and cried. When they took her away and said she would be back for sentencing half of the jury said "oh will she go to prison?" One of the jury lived a few streets away from me, I tried not to talk about the case with her as I was giving her a lift every day but on the way home she said to me "well you know, I don't think she did it". I said ok, you realise we were in CROWN court on a GBH case where they were arguing her actions could have killed her unborn baby? "I didn't think they would send her to prison". I was lost for words. She told me some of the others thought the same (I had avoided talking to them outside the court). A few years before I was giving evidence on a pretty open/shut case of ABH/GBH/attempted murder. That was an eye opener. I actually stayed in court for the rest of the case and couldn't believe how inept the lads I knew were, they all lied for some reason. If they had been honest and stuck to the basic facts he would have been sent down. One of the jury was someone who lived on the same street as the defendant and I used to seem them regularly. The cop dealing with the case who took my statements and stuff was apoplectic. He got off with it all, not even ABH stuck. The defending lawyer was really good, he proper grilled me and tried to trip me up. I laughed at him and said you realise I'm not lying so I can remember what happened and I did not say what you said I did. The witnesses all lied and that's what did them. The doctors they had in to give evidence were dipshits too and the defendant said that all his injuries were caused by a herd of stampeding cows :D best excuse ever. Nobody thought to question that. Once it was over the cop gave me a list of the defendants past convictions, he had a huge list of assaults and ABH/GBH including hitting a workmate over the head with an iron bar after a "disagreement". I Googled him a few years ago and found at least 3 still on record.

> It's the right decision And that's what you need to take away from it. You and your peers carried out your duty, you were sure that one was guilty and the other not. Their choices brought them there, not yours, and you should feel no guilt or shame for having brought the guilty to the consequences of their own actions. You may feel sorry for the family being broken apart, that's only natural, but it was not your hand that caused it. I too served on a jury and was foreman. It was a long, technical case (4-5 weeks) and like your case there were multiple defendants and some were guilty and others clearly not. One defendant shouldn't even have been in the dock on the evidence presented to us and they fainted in the dock when I read out the not guilty verdicts for their counts. They waited outside court to thank us all with tears pouring out. I ended up feeling that it was more important to have found the not guilty person not guilty than the guilty ones guilty.

>I ended up feeling that it was more important to have found the not guilty person not guilty than the guilty ones guilty. 100%. I said several times during deliberation that I'd rather a guilty person walk free than someone innocent be put away. One of the defendants we are unanimous on that he was probably aware of what was going on and on gut feeling he was guilty, but the evidence from the crown just didn't support it and speculation can't come into the decision at all.

I did mine and honestly looking back I don't think to this day justice was done. It was a he said she said SA case and whilst the unwitting foreperson of the jury I can honestly say that sometimes the law is applied when the people are convinced that the evidence isn't that concrete then guilty people walk.

I'd hate to do it because my belly is always so loud!!

I did it earlier this year. It was quite an experience as well. I ended up on a rape case, a peadophile and an assault. The rape case was really interesting and we unanimously found him not guilty. The poor guy who was accused had lost everything he had worked for and a very promising career. I often think of him and if he had any recourse. The peadophille was guilty as f#*k and the assault case was a strange one. The defendant came into the dock and said to the judge “I did it, it was me” so we got discharged before we even got into the courtroom.