dcsimg
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Ain't this some s**t!

  1. #11
    Senior Member OverdueSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    556
    pwaring Jury deliberations are confidential in the US also. At least as far as naming the Jurors goes. All we actually knew was that one jurur would not cast a guilty verdict, thereby holding up a decision, since the verdict must be unanimus. We never would have known which juror was responsible for the hold out, if it were not for the sheer act of stupidity, where the juror in question gave a "thumbs up" to the Tyco defendants when the jury re-entered the courtroom. IMHO with the mountain of evidence against Tyco, I do not see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the executives were anything but guilty. Then again money talks. Unfortunately, almost everyone has a price. If you were a juror how much would it take to buy your vote? 1- 2- 5 million? Your family members not having broken legs? The Tyco executives have sufficient funds to make this happen. It's just a matter of finding how much or what matters to you? If I was the head of the government prosecution team, I would be looking real hard for a witness tampering link.
    The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    OverdueSpy: have you been taking spelling lessons from me?
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  3. #13
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Obviously this deliberation wasn't secret otherwise how would the papers have found out about it? The US must have more lax rules regarding contempt of court because even if a newspaper in the UK found out about how a jury reached its verdict, who voted which way or anything along those lines, they wouldn't dare publish it.

    IMHO with the mountain of evidence against Tyco, I do not see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the executives were anything but guilty.
    Perhaps the jury has seen some evidence that you haven't?
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  4. #14
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Obviously this deliberation wasn't secret otherwise how would the papers have found out about it?
    That's the issue, they seemingly were secret but the conduct in the court room was very indicative of what was happening behind closed doors. In America the general public is allowed to attend hearings where the state is accusing a citizen of a crime. They, the public of the state are allowed to witness the trial. The accusations of jury problems come from the witness of several events.

    I didn't know Jurors could never release information of a trial in the UK, that places a heavy burden on the Juror to remain silent their entire lives on issues. I see the good in that, I also see the bad, in that a public will never know what transpired in cases of political influence. At the same time, our system often uses the media to make a circus of the system. Like Tyco, M. Stuart, O.J., on and on and on. The fact is, America in general, loves to watch that stuff while clued to the tele.

    I watch the fiasco and see some embarassing elements, while another watches and sees justice. Another trial is pending because there are some facts in the case, like hundreds of millions being squandered away while in the control of those executives. They had the keys.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  5. #15
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    In the UK members of the public and watch trials if they so please (I did as part of my Law A levels) with some exceptions such as cases in the Youth and Family Courts. Regardless, no-one can reveal any information about the jury deliberations or imply that a certain decision was reached by one juror - to do so would land you either in contempt of court, perverting the course of justice or obstructing the course of justice - depending on what you said/did.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  6. #16
    Senior Member OverdueSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    556
    Originally posted here by pwaring
    Obviously this deliberation wasn't secret otherwise how would the papers have found out about it? The US must have more lax rules regarding contempt of court because even if a newspaper in the UK found out about how a jury reached its verdict, who voted which way or anything along those lines, they wouldn't dare publish it.

    Perhaps the jury has seen some evidence that you haven't?
    EDIT

    All True except for the deliberations. The actual conversations are kept confidential during the trial and names are never released unless the individual juror steps forward and volunteers the information. However, with the way our judicial system works, I would bet that the Jury probably has "not" seen some evidence that the rest of the public has viewed. Of course, this evidence will be skewed by our media. So that is one factor to consider.
    The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!

  7. #17
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Erm, surely the jurors are members of the public and therefore watch the television and read newspapers just like anyone else? If anything, they will have at least seen both sides of the story.

    I thought an American judge had recently ruled that (don't know if it only applies to murder cases or not) the deliberations of jurors could be filmed? I heard about it on an old episode of Have I Got News For You from a year or so ago, don't know if the ruling was overturned or not.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  8. #18
    Senior Member OverdueSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    556
    Once selected for a trial, jurors are not supposed to read or watch news articles pertaining to the case they are sitting on. The jurors are only supposed to consider information that is deemed permissible as evidence by the court. Which is probably why OJ walked! IMHO
    The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!

  9. #19
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Yes pwaring they are in our terms "sequestered". At what level depends on the crime, in cases of capitol punishment (death sentence) they are removed from the public, and placed in a sort of isolated state. No new media etc. It's not perfect by any means. In some cases they are removed from one state and tried in another.

    For instance, Timothy McVeigh could not have been given a fair trial in Oklahoma, when he bombed the federal building - so he was moved and tried in Denver Colorado where the influence on jury members was hopefully less of an issue. But all in all it is up to the jury to answer questions truthfully and keep themselves unbiased. For instance in this Tyco case, juror number 4 might have been asked something like, "have you ever heard of Tyco." or "Do you believe white collar crimes should carry the same sentence as a violent crime." These things are used by both prosecution and defense.

    Of course if you are a defender you are not going to select her based on her interpretation of the punishment value of the crime. I mean it's your job to defend the client! And if you’re the prosecutor you aren’t going to place someone on the jury who could care lass if a white collar crime is punishable. The selection process is very complicated with strict rules of engagement and counter. That is the flaw in the system, it's reliant on human nature, but I see no better alternative. It's pretty decent in both countries.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  10. #20
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    The media is one reason why Harold Shipman can never be officially convicted of murder - no jury could be said to be unbiased in reaching its verdict (

    I don't think our jurors are advised not to watch the news with regards to the case they are sitting on - although 99% of the time the case in question probably won't make the main newspapers anyway.

    I can't believe that you are allowed to ask jurors questions based on their political beliefs, such as what sentences should be given out. That's irrelevant to the case in question (especially since over here it's the judge who sentences) and an easy way for the prosecution or defence to get a jury that they want. In our system if you get called up for jury service you are unlikely to get out of it unless you have a very good excuse (exams, pre-booked holidays, professional reasons - e.g. if you are a doctor you could argue that you can't afford to take two weeks off work because of the backlog that would create, plus obviously the police and convicted criminals can't serve).

    This discussion reminds me of an essay I had to write a couple of years ago entitled "Should juries be used in criminal cases?". I came down in favour of juries generally, although I got hammered in terms of marks because my views were considered too contraversial and judgemental.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •