What cheeses me off

[DC3]

But once delivered it can't be changed unless a new trial occurs through appeal. . Yes Judge can have closing comments but they are by no means binding.

Are you following all of this, John?

 

[Pushka]

The HCoA in Doney vs Queen says otherwise and a trial judge can direct a jury to deliver a not guilty verdict.

The jury appraises the evidence - they are the finder of fact. A jury verdict still has to be declared by the judge

 

[andye]

My understanding is that juries are in general very conscientious and balanced. Those who may not be initially will get taken along by the group

 

[DC3]

It’s rather interesting seeing what cheeses-off some of our AFFers.

 

[Pushka]

It’s rather interesting seeing what cheeses-off some of our AFFers.

Some of the AFF'ers as well

 

[DejaBrew]

Slightly OT, but all this talk about jury duty reminds me of The Jury: Death On The Staircase which is available to watch on SBS On Demand. Worthwhile viewing for those curious for some insight into the role of a jury, how difficult it is for jurors to fulfil that role (as opposed to playing detective etc) and how different personalities and perspectives can make a massive difference to the outcome of a trial.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Oh OK. Must remember that @Pushka said I cannot think for myself and must not judge and must do what everyone tells me.

P.S. I can judge who I want when I want and no one can stop me. Please excuse me from jury duty as I've already made up my mind. Simple request. Why would anyone try to fight it?

I really really hope that society does not go down the path of forcing people to think alike and not question. Welcome to the Borg where all are equal. Where all are the same.

Because, you could be exactly the person they are looking for!

Let’s say there was a case over seat reclining on a plane (ended up in a heated argument), or someone allegedly disobeying crew instructions because they used the business class lavatory instead of the one at the back.

You might be the ideal person the defence is looking for because you might understand why their client acted in the way they did!

Pre-judging someone may not be a disadvantage.

 

[n7of9]

People underestimate the sense of duty one feels when faced with the seriousness of a courtroom. The commanding presence of a Judge, wigs and robes everywhere, hushed tones, everyone sitting silently, listening and watching. Most contentious people very quickly understand the importance of their role, and one's prejudices are often challenged. Anyone assuming they know how they'll think or feel are quite mistaken.

 

[JohnK]

Sorry if pointing out the facts disturbs you.

Good god. Evaluating the strength of the evidence forces you to think for yourself. Exactly the opposite of your mindset expressed above. Dont judge the person, judge the evidence. I guess this concept just doesn't exist in any simulation.

What I am trying to say is there are people out there who have already made up their mind and are not fit to be on any jury. That is fact. Not speculation. We should not be forcing them to be on a jury. They should be excused.

Whether we are in a "reality" or simulation is not relevant. Most would not know the difference.q

 

[Quickstatus]

But once delivered it can't be changed unless a new trial occurs through appeal

A jury verdict is just a finding of a fact - the guilt or innocence of a defendant. And the trial judge can also direct a jury to deliver a not guilty verdict. (Doney vs Queen).

With that finding of fact, the Judge, not the Jury, then hands down the Judgement/decision.

 

[Pushka]

A jury verdict is just a finding of a fact - the guilt or innocence of a defendant. And the trial judge can also direct a jury to deliver a not guilty verdict. (Doney vs Queen).

With that finding of fact, the Judge, not the Jury, then hands down the Judgement/decision.

We've already covered that. A Judge can direct a Jury, but they simply cannot override a jury decision or prevent them from making their own decision. If the jury decides Guilty (or not Guilty) then the Judge can throw their wig at the jury but they cannot change that verdict. The Judges thoughts about the verdict may be reflected in their decision of penalty but it's a fine line as penalities that seem inappropriate to the crime can be challenged by both the Prosecution and the Defendant.

Honestly I don't know why this seems problematic to understand.

I'm not sure what you are reading but the SA Law Hanbook is quite clear as to the various roles of Judge and Jury. As per this quote:
"When the jury reaches a verdict (decision on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant), its role comes to an
end."

The decision as to guilt or otherwise is made before the Judges decision on penalty. The judge does not / cannot decide guilt in a jury trial. Their ONLY decision is penalty (and any procedural issues needing to be addressed during the trial process)

Unless you are simply playing on words in which case

 

[Quickstatus]

Unless you are simply playing on words in which case

Exactly. The Jury does not deliver or write the Judgement. They just find the fact of G or NG to the judge. The Judge then sits in Judgement and either convicts or acquits the defendant.

 

[Pushka]

Exactly. The Jury does not deliver or write the Judgement. They just find the fact of G or NG to the judge. The Judge then sits in Judgement and either convicts or acquits the defendant.

No. A judge simply cannot acquit someone who has just been declared guilty by the jury. That is wrong. The judges ONLY role on finding of guilt is determining penalty. It's all there in the SA Law Handbook on which law is based. Once the foreman says Guilty it's declared as such and conviction recorded.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No. A judge simply cannot acquit someone who has just been declared guilty by the jury. That is wrong. The judges ONLY role on finding of guilt is determining penalty. It's all there in the SA Law Handbook on which law is based. Once the foreman says Guilty it's declared as such and conviction recorded.

Yes, but Quickstatus was making the interesting point that the jury may not even get to decide. Before they get the chance,the judge can direct them to return a ‘not guilty’. Although that would be a question of whether or not there was enough evidence in the first place to support a conviction. It’s a question of law rather than evidence, so fairly rare!

 

[JohnK]

Are you following all of this, John?

I'm trying to follow.

At the end of the day being on a jury should be something someone wants to do not forced into it. And yes by all means pay them better. I do not see serving on a jury as my right nor my responsibility. I have enough in life to worry about. I don't need distractions.

Because, you could be exactly the person they are looking for!

You make a good point but I'm not convinced.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm trying to follow.

At the end of the day being on a jury should be something someone wants to do not forced into it. And yes by all means pay them better. I do not see serving on a jury as my right nor my responsibility. I have enough in life to worry about. I don't need distractions.


You make a good point but I'm not convinced.

But problem with a voluntary jury is that you’re not necessarily going to get a cross-section of peers.

There are already exceptions… doctors, lawyers, people who say they can’t get out of work. Who does that leave?

Making jury service compulsory means you should get a better mix of people. Not just those who are retired, or don’t work, or who ‘don’t want to’. You want both old and new perspectives on a jury. Not just people who think one way due to their generation.

In my example above, you could be exactly the person they are looking for.

 

[Pushka]

Yes, but Quickstatus was making the interesting point that the jury may not even get to decide. Before they get the chance,the judge can direct them to return a ‘not guilty’. Although that would be a question of whether or not there was enough evidence in the first place to support a conviction. It’s a question of law rather than evidence, so fairly rare!

Yes that's possible where the evidence is flawed for a multitude of reasons and a direction made. But this relates back to ensuring a trial is fair and adhering to legal principles in the presentation of evidence. Which was referred to earlier. Just as they can also declare a mistrial if the jurors act against proceedings. Just as happened in one recent case.

My interpretation of QS comments is that a Judge is the one who makes the judgement of guilt and not the jurors. Which is completely different.