Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Imagine a murder trial where the defendant, although pleading NOT GUILTY, is obviously guilty beyond any shred of a doubt. Lots of witnesses, video evidence etc.
Here are the questions:
1) Can the judge order (as opposed to recommend) the jury to return a guilty verdict?
2) If yes, what are his or her options if the jury returns a not guilty verdict?
I'm thinking of situations where a) the jury or their families might have been threatened or bribed; or b) the defendant committed an act of revenge and most people thought the dead person fully deserved their fate.
Here are the questions:
1) Can the judge order (as opposed to recommend) the jury to return a guilty verdict?
2) If yes, what are his or her options if the jury returns a not guilty verdict?
I'm thinking of situations where a) the jury or their families might have been threatened or bribed; or b) the defendant committed an act of revenge and most people thought the dead person fully deserved their fate.
Show More
1) Can the judge order (as opposed to recommend) the jury to return a guilty verdict?
No
No
Your question is very hypothetical.
I think most criminals in a scenario such as this would bribe or threaten the witnesses.
I think most criminals in a scenario such as this would bribe or threaten the witnesses.
So if the defendant is declared not guilty that's it, they're free? The judge cannot declare it a mistrial? No double jeopardy, they can never be tried again for that murder?
The judge can't overrule a not guilty verdict.
The law regarding a retrial is, as far as understand it, very clear: an individual can only be retried for the same crime if new evidence arises.
The law regarding a retrial is, as far as understand it, very clear: an individual can only be retried for the same crime if new evidence arises.
A simple google search re double jeopardy in the UK will tell you all you want to know.
As an example (down here in Sussex), Russell Bishop has been jailed for murder having previously been acquitted of the same offence on the same victims.
It is of course perfectly proper for the Judge to direct the jury on points of law and draw attention to various elements of the case.
Here is Judge Peter Cook in action - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
As an example (down here in Sussex), Russell Bishop has been jailed for murder having previously been acquitted of the same offence on the same victims.
It is of course perfectly proper for the Judge to direct the jury on points of law and draw attention to various elements of the case.
Here is Judge Peter Cook in action - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
The judge is the judge of the law.
The jury is the judge of the facts ( guilty or not )
Double Jeopardy means the crown cannot keep bringing new trials because they didn't get the guilty verdict. However a person can be retried after a not guilty verdict if significant evidence comes to light that was unknown at the time of original trial.
eg that paedo in Brighton acquitted of murdering 2 girls in the 80s was recently back in the dock for the same crime.
The jury is the judge of the facts ( guilty or not )
Double Jeopardy means the crown cannot keep bringing new trials because they didn't get the guilty verdict. However a person can be retried after a not guilty verdict if significant evidence comes to light that was unknown at the time of original trial.
eg that paedo in Brighton acquitted of murdering 2 girls in the 80s was recently back in the dock for the same crime.
Oh I see Blackbarn already mentioned that one. Yes, Russell Bishop, I'd forgotten his name.
I think the judge can overrule a guilty verdict but cannot overrule a not guilty verdict.
A judge can't overule a guilty verdict. He can direct them to return a NG and end the trial before their deliberations.
Another hypothetical question that people in the various massively enriched arts of the UK should be asking. How far away is the day when prosecutors will not be able to achieve a guilty verdict on an open and shut piece of criminality, because of the (sympathetic) composition of the jury?
alun - I think you are referring to a time in the future when any current minority might assume such numbers that they might, by the normal selection process, form the majority of a chosen jury.
In this case, and even NOW, the defence OR the prosecution has the right to seek to object to certain jurors to "ensure" what would in their view constitute a "balanced" jury.
In this case, and even NOW, the defence OR the prosecution has the right to seek to object to certain jurors to "ensure" what would in their view constitute a "balanced" jury.
Good question, or it would be if for the past five centuries there were no guilty verdicts because white christian juries refused to convict white christian defendants.
To be fair to the OP, there have been occasions when juries' reluctance to convict led to changes in the law. It was said to be one of the factors behind the abolition of capital punishment. Then there Diplock courts in Northern Ireland.
What OP needs to worry about is not juries but witness intimidation.
What OP needs to worry about is not juries but witness intimidation.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539