I found having my name read out appalling,and 7/8 of the rest of the jury will be lily-livered tosssers

Did it when the first foot and mouth disease thing was about so no racing on.Result! I was working on the racecourse at the time too so at least copped some wages!
Got 2 trials in my fortnight which slightly overran (Say you earn more than you do, you actually find the money they pay after the 2nd week is up isn't too bad)
One nonce case who had a decent brief so we couldnt do him properly, dare say he got justice inside though, and the most boring GBH trial in history involving a 5ft tall 'hardman' and his 5ft tall partner chinning a couple of**ed up students. It got so boring I had to smuggle some vodka into my water one afternoon!
Was fun though when we popped into the local weatherspoons for lunch one day and there was the accused having a swift half..got a nod dunno if he thought i was gonna go**or what!

Only been called up once and only sat on one case but I found it to be a dreadful and disturbing experience:

DREADFUL in that you are never told anything whilst waiting.You get there before 10.00AM.You sit in a room with 80 or so others,most are so thick that they just sit and stare at the wall without even The Sun for reading material.Once in a while,an 'usher' sticks his head around the door.Some people perk-up thinking that something is about to happen,but the usher withdraws without speaking.At 1.00PM the usher returns to say that you can go to lunch,even though they knew hours before that no one was going to be called.We had to be back by 2.00PM,so only time for a quick snack following the walk to town.

DISTURBING:The defendant on my sole case was facing a serious charge.I had made notes.In his summing up the judge said that the case should never have been brought.In the Jury room,whilst not the foreman,I asked for an initial call which turned out to be myself and another guy for not guilty and the other 10 for guilty.In the ensuing discussions I mentioned what the Judge had said in his summary.'Oh,I don't remember that' was the common response,so I called for a transcript to be brought in and there it was.The other guy was much more eloquent than me in the defendants defence and 10-2 against soon became 11-1 in his favour.An elderly,bigoted East European woman held out against.It was a Friday afternoon and some wanted her to change her mind just so that they could get home.Eventually she relented,possibly on that account.

I couldn't sleep for days after this,thinking what if myself and the other guy hadn't been called.

JURY = POT LUCK,imo.

Sort of backs up the idea that having 12 people helped get the right decision.

But they didn't did they?

By having 12 people sitting, the chances of the correct decision ( in your opinion ) was arrived at. I'm just saying that its better than having 1 judge sitting that was proposed earlier.

Probably/Possibly half of the people were day dreaming or similiar during the evidence,though you would have thought that they would at least have had the attention span to listen to the Judges summary,but they didn't.

I reiterate that my point is is that it might be pot luck.From 80 or so people they picked 2 or were in the defendant's favour.What if they picked myself and 11 who were against.I would have stayed there until Hell froze over with my verdict but the other guy did more than me for the defendant.

Page: Previous 1 2


Brodie 14 Jan 18:24
By having 12 people sitting, the chances of the correct decision ( in your opinion ) was arrived at. I'm just saying that its better than having 1 judge sitting that was proposed earlier.

I was called up last year. The most boring two weeks of the year. Spent hours in the jury room reading paper after paper. The food was rubbish and cost a fortune. :(

One case of 1 day... up for dodgy £20's.... so boring

Brodie you can't use the "what if" argument here, the facts are 2 of you were there and in your opinion you reached the correct verdict, what if the correct version was the other way and you two messed it by some smooth talking and stubburn persuasion...

not saying you did...

maybe the average was 3 or 4 people like you and the fact there were 12 meant that the number of jurors meant they can absorb flucuations in the average poplulation... this is all the other fella is saying.

i did Jury service once and after only 3 or 4 mins in the deliberating room i could see how effective having 12 randoms was in not being a bias prosecutor.

If you want a bit of excitement then you can ring up and ask for the Old Baily. you have to run the gauntlet of the press each day and can end up on he same bloody tube carriage as the defendants family on the way home tho !!! this is what happened to me...

i wowuldn't want to do it again and haven't enrolled on the electorol roll since.

i said years ago ....i had an infectious rash......they said dont bother ..we;ll call you some other time.....now i have time......nothing.

boxingthefox 14 Jan 15:28
Brodie, I could give you examples of the total opposite of what you have posted. But I agree generally with the premise that a jury should be less cynical. Most Human conventions are flawed to some degree.

So you agree with my logic yet its presumptive at the same time.
Got it.

No problem boxing ,I can be longwinded and don't get my point across. :D

what is skype ?

http://www.skype.com/intl/en/download/skype/windows/?cm_mmc=PAIDS|GAWS-_-EMEAF|GB|EN-_-BD|DOWNL-_-zf8wp4

clever stuff tbf :)

cheers boxing great link and advice will get it and try and get my family friends hooked up :)

cheers :)