K.T Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 About 90% of my work colleagues have been called up for Jury Duty in the last year so I expect my name to appear soon. How the f**k do you get out of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I was on a jury at Glasgow Sheriff Court a few years ago now. A guy came home drunk and tried to get into his home round the back with some sort of conservatory entrance. His partner woudn't let him in so he took out his lighter and tried to melt the plastic door frame, causing wisps of fumes to come off of it. When the police arrived, he dropped the lighter and tried to make out he was just banging on the door but they found it about 2 feet away from him. The initial charge was willful fire-raising but he plea bargained at the start of day 2 after the first police officer had given his evidence to plead guilty to breach of the peace. We got an okay lunch out of it, but I'll be honest I preferred the two days before when we got a lunch allowance. I was cited to appear for Glasgow High Court at the start of the month but we were discharged without ever actually having to turn-up. Just the way the cases ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 Think two jurors wanted "not proven", rest said "guilty". Everyone spoke their mind in turn then we wrote our individual verdicts on bits of paper. I think there were some who were not keen on declaring aloud. Once guilt was established, we did the same again for "murder" or "manslaughter", and a majority chose the former. We then had to chose someone to read out the verdict, at which point the room fell silent. I was about to volunteer when the guy next to me offered to do it. It really hammered home what we were doing when we heard the deceased's family sobbing as the word "guilty" was heard. The boy got 20 odd years, and likely didn't get out early given he escaped for a week after the trial. All this whilst awaiting sentence for a separate assault in prison prior to his trial. Very interesting, and it actually brings home that it's not a very pleasant experience..... I'm sort of embarrassed that I said I would like to serve in a high profile case after reading your post, but if it was the Scranton strangler..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I went for it once, didn't get picked, but still had to hear the grizzly details of the case first. A bunch of folk broke into a guy's house and did a serious number on him. I had to go for a drink after. Grim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Think two jurors wanted "not proven", rest said "guilty". Everyone spoke their mind in turn then we wrote our individual verdicts on bits of paper. I think there were some who were not keen on declaring aloud. Once guilt was established, we did the same again for "murder" or "manslaughter", and a majority chose the former. We then had to chose someone to read out the verdict, at which point the room fell silent. I was about to volunteer when the guy next to me offered to do it. It really hammered home what we were doing when we heard the deceased's family sobbing as the word "guilty" was heard. The boy got 20 odd years, and likely didn't get out early given he escaped for a week after the trial. All this whilst awaiting sentence for a separate assault in prison prior to his trial. I take it you mean culpable homicide not manslaughter? Or was it in England? The presence of "not proven" minority suggests Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 I was on a jury at Glasgow Sheriff Court a few years ago now. A guy came home drunk and tried to get into his home round the back with some sort of conservatory entrance. His partner woudn't let him in so he took out his lighter and tried to melt the plastic door frame, causing wisps of fumes to come off of it. When the police arrived, he dropped the lighter and tried to make out he was just banging on the door but they found it about 2 feet away from him. The initial charge was willful fire-raising but he plea bargained at the start of day 2 after the first police officer had given his evidence to plead guilty to breach of the peace. We got an okay lunch out of it, but I'll be honest I preferred the two days before when we got a lunch allowance. I was cited to appear for Glasgow High Court at the start of the month but we were discharged without ever actually having to turn-up. Just the way the cases ran. Do you think, given your legal training, you would approach a case differently ( as a juror) than you would, had you not studied law? It interests me ( based on TV & court reports) how much of the legal argument flies over the head of jurors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 I went for it once, didn't get picked, but still had to hear the grizzly details of the case first. A bunch of folk broke into a guy's house and did a serious number on him. I had to go for a drink after. Grim. Don't sign off like a Lite version of Mr O'Grady! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I take it you mean culpable homicide not manslaughter? Or was it in England? The presence of "not proven" minority suggests Scotland? It was in Kilmarnock sheriff court (which I found odd given the crime was a Glasgow one, but maybe it's because he was arrested in Ayr). I meant whatever means "murder without the intent to murder". Given the boy had to go and steal the weapon he used, I was bemused at how there could have been a debate about it once guilt was established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Is this Grim? Sheriff Michael O'Grady http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35168499 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillonearth Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 About 90% of my work colleagues have been called up for Jury Duty in the last year so I expect my name to appear soon. How the f**k do you get out of it? Depends on where you live - guy I know used to work in the sheriff's office in Glasgow, and at that time what they did was send out a mailshot with a letter to say 500 people saying they were eligible. The majority replied and were added to the jury pool, but if you ignored the initial letter they never chased it up as they weren't resourced to. Once you get the jury duty pack through you've got to have something quite cast-iron to get out of it - my missus got cited for jury service just before we flew out to get hitched, and IIRC had to provide proof that she was actually out of the country on those dates rather than taking a dive in the box to get out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Not really the thread but it was for non-payment of t'Poll Tax, got sent down both times, the 3rd year the c***s arrested me wages, took it all out of Christmas pay, come on the Leith Walk/Crawl an I'll tell you about the hunger strike I started. Grimbo I've got you down as that Lukewarm character from Porridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim O'Grady Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I've got you down as that Lukewarm character from Porridge.. I saw myself more as Lenny, I have got geography O'Level. Grimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Was a juror on a murder trial back in the day - fucking horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolph Hucker Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 . I saw myself more as Lenny, I have got geography O'Level. Grimbo So have I, but you don't see ME going around boasting about it............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I've got it for the second time in January. First time I was called then wasn't required, got called again in October but I was away training with work and now I've got it again. No idea how the selection process works as my dad hasn't been cited since 1987. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottR96 Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I've never been called - but sat in the gallery for a murder trial as part of my Advanced Higher Modern Studies when I was at school. Boring as f**k. Some junkie was up for murdering his dealer but it was just forensic reports and some woman from the DWP reading out what benefits the accused was in receipt of at that time. The best part was the judge having to stop a witness in his tracks to explain what the term "mad wae it" meant. He ended up getting away with it on a non proven verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Do you think, given your legal training, you would approach a case differently ( as a juror) than you would, had you not studied law? It interests me ( based on TV & court reports) how much of the legal argument flies over the head of jurors?Yes definitely. The way we look at things in the context of many things, not just criminality, is shaped by legal education. Perversely, one of the reasons that there are a raft of disqualifications and exemptions from jury duty for most, though not all, in the legal profession is the belief that there is too much potential for a lawyer on a jury to skew the discussions and unduly to influence the minds of other jurors. As it happens I am neither disqualified nor exempt as a law academic who went straight into postgrad study without ever entering professional legal training or becoming a solicitor or advocate.Some of the horror stories you hear about juries really do cast doubt on whether they are capable of following simple direction by the judge, let alone whether they are capable of distinguishing what they're meant to do and how they do it. I see the designated job of a jury as being to assess whether the facts satisfy the criteria stated in law for the crime to be committed. I also think that members of the public drawn by ballot are horrendously placed to make those determinations of fact even if they understand the nature of their job. I would abolish juries completely in preference for summary procedure across the board. The advantages are numerous, not least that judges can be expected to give written reasons for their decisions, which can then be tested and held to account. It was in Kilmarnock sheriff court (which I found odd given the crime was a Glasgow one, but maybe it's because he was arrested in Ayr). I meant whatever means "murder without the intent to murder". Given the boy had to go and steal the weapon he used, I was bemused at how there could have been a debate about it once guilt was established.I've not looked at the jurisdiction rules for the Sheriff Courts in criminal cases in ages, but it's possibly because the guy lives in the Kilmarnock Sheriffdom.Lack of "intent to murder" is a bit of a legal circularity, as murder is by definition deliberate killing in the absence of diminished responsibility or a defence. Culpable homicide is where when you kill or cause to be killed someone but you don't mean to do it, but there will typically be an act of negligence or in some cases a limited intent to injure, short of killing, like an assault. Where Scots and English law have both struggled in their own ways are the borderline cases and distinguishing an intent to kill versus non-fatally injure. Scotland used to have the concept of "wicked recklessness" where it was still murder if you showed a disregard for whether your actions had a realistic prospect of killing someone, but recent cases have muddied the waters there. This is maybe an indication of how a lawyer would approach this question differently from a layperson. I don't know how judges tend to direct juries in a homicide case, but I wouldn't be asking "are they guilty" as the first question like you described and I wouldn't ask the jury to "choose between" murder and culpable homicide as such. The question of culpable homicide would only enter my mind if they were first acquitted or not proven on murder. I would ask: 1. Did he kill him/was he part of a common enterprise to kill him? If not, not guilty of either charge. 2. Did he either intend to kill him or show total disregard for whether he lived or died as a result of the attack he initiated? If yes, murder (absent a defence or diminished responsibility), if no: 3. Did he intend to injure him? If yes, guilty culpable homicide. If no: 4. Did he act recklessly or negligently in some way so as to cause the death? If yes, guilty culpable homicide, if no, not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevco Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Was on jury duty for a horrible case, a 70 year old man had abused 4 boys there whole life's, they were 16 when they spoke out. Was found guilty straight away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 . I saw myself more as Lenny, I have got geography O'Level. Grimbo Is that Irish geography? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I've not looked at the jurisdiction rules for the Sheriff Courts in criminal cases in ages, but it's possibly because the guy lives in the Kilmarnock Sheriffdom. It was a High Court case, so regardless of where the crime was committed it could be heard at any High Court sitting, be it at the permanent sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow or at any of the circuit sittings at local sheriff courts. Agree re: juries in general. Once sat through a murder trial where the accused had gone into his house, armed himself then stabbed a guy to death. He got a culpable homicide verdict. And last month sat through a death by careless driving trial where the accused got off entirely, as far as I could tell because the jury thought she was a nice old lady, despite all the eyewitnesses and experts telling the court that she was on the wrong side of the road when she crashed head on into another car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.