Have you ever been called up for jury duty? Did you go? Or did you get out of it? Is jury duty too easy to get out of? And is it fair when some people say you should be concerned when you face a jury because you know your fate is in the hands of 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty.
I think it would be amazing, and incredibly hard, to sit on a jury. Annie sat on a case once - and wore holes into or out of her sandshoes by tapping her toes in them for the better part of 6 months. As I recall was referred to as the Greek Conspiracy case, and there may also have been something about defrauding Medicare. My Mum sat on a drugs possession case some years ago and Sooz also sat on a drugs case but only for a day before the jury was dismissed after a juror reported that they had seen someone (from the courtroom the previous day) in their neighbourhood overnight and had felt intimidated. The magistrate told the jury he had no option but to call for a new jury - and this could be seen as part of the cost of a healthy justice system.
Neither of us has been called for jury duty since.
1 comment:
Hi K,
There was an interesting TV doco on SBS last night that looked at how juries work.
(Stop reading now if you have copied it and haven’t watch yet because spoilers follow)
A mock trail (because filming a jury in their deliberations in the real trial is illegal) was staged and two separate juries empanelled. It was an attempt to see if the two juries - who were kept completely separately except for being in the same court room to hear the same evidence at the same time - would return the same verdict. The case was of a younger gay man charged with murdering his older disabled lover, or on a lesser charge, had aided and abetted in the victim’s suicide. The prosecutions case was based on a belief that the disabled victim was physically unable to have killed himself and the victim’s sister - a nun - conviction that her brother would not have committed suicided.
They has actors playing the accused (a good looking young guy of ethnic origin), the nun (a while, older female, mostly in tears), and a couple of men playing a detective and medical experts (all well dress in business suits). The judge was a real judge of long standing (retired) and the lawyers were current practicing barristers.
The juries were quite a mixed group of complete strangers (mostly not individually identified to the audience) – including possibly war veterans, a older male hippy type, an Aboriginal women, a Muslim woman (identified via the hijab), younger women, one a possible lesbian (according to my gaydar) - generally men and women from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and various age groups ranging from mid twenties to 60 plus.
An interesting set up – lots of potential for personal bias and bigotry - homosexuality, disability, religious doctrine, ageism, racism, right to euthanasia, combined with no-one with experience on a jury and little medical knowledge or understanding. Both juries quickly selected a male as their foremen (with little real discussion and no women being suggested or volunteering for the job). Jury 1 foreman (younger white guy) telling us as an aside to the camera that he had ‘leadership’ skills and he gone in really wanting to be the foreman. Jury 2 foreman (older black man – Indian ethnic, maybe) was nominated by others and didn’t really object to having the job.
The prosecutions claim was that the accused had given (or forced) the victim to take 40 or more valium tablets then placed a plastic bag over his head causing him to suffocate. The defence is that the victim had wanted to die, had made a video to that effect and may have been able to take the tablets himself. Their claim was unassisted suicide. Following the presentation of the medical evidence the judge throws out the murder charge as the prosecution was unable to definitely prove cause of death - other than the victim had ingested tablets, the volume of which would have resulted in death. This then left the charge of “aiding and betting” in a suicide for the jury to decide – if the accused help the victim to take the tablets he was to be found guilty and if there was a reasonable doubt that the accused assisted then he was to be acquitted.
And while it was fascinating for me as the general public (with no experience on a jury) to watch these jury room discussions, it was also totally new ground for the judge and lawyers involved to watch as well. The prosecution barrister was genuinely surprised at how seriously the jury members were taking the case (she kept say ‘they know it is a mock trail!’) and at the tangents that the ‘discussions’ speared off into, often well away from ‘facts’ into alternative murder theories such as the nun actually did it! The stress they placed on themselves to do the right thing was also clear to see.
In the end jury 1 all agreed to acquit, which was very happily announced by the foreman (his moment in the spotlight), but only came to that decision after a splitter group of about 4 people (lead by the Aboriginal women) which were possibly initially supporting a guilty verdict - they wouldn’t say one way or the other – they just knew they needed more time to considered their decision - where very grudgingly allow time (several hours) to review video evidence again and talk amongst themselves. They moved to another room which had the video equipment and to escape bully from the foreman and others who had already made their minds up. The bullying took the form of demanding to know what their ‘issues’ were so they could all discuss the ‘problem’ (ie be browbeaten by the others into agreeing with the majority view). A view, I think, that was established early in the proceedings (possibly cemented about the time the murder charge was dropped). Interesting the actor playing the accused said that the foreman of this jury was the only one on either jury to make direct and repeated eye contract with him during the trial.
Jury 2 was 10 to 2 for acquittal but could not reach a unanimous decision so they ended with a mistrial with the accused to face another trial. As the mock trail had a limited filming period they had to be brought back earlier to deliver their verdict than the judge would have allowed in a real case. The two hold-outs (the hippy guy and a white male that appeared conservative in dress and demeanour) on this jury kind of agreed that the prosecution didn’t prove that the accused physically did assist but they just were not prepared to believe the disabled victim could have taken his own life without assistance because of the extend of his disability - especially impossible to getting a plastic bag over his own head. It didn’t really look like they could have been ‘talked’ around to the majority view in spite of the possibility that the plastic bag may not have even been involved in the final cause of death.
The thing that surprised and pleased me was the almost unquestioned completed acceptance that the relationship between the gay lovers was genuine regardless of the age difference. Not a single jury member appeared to support the murder charge and several talked about the pain of losing a loved one and an inability to ‘help someone off’ because you love them too much. This may have been because the prosecution barrister didn’t raise any suspicion about the nature of the relationship and the sister’s evidence centred on her claiming the brother had told her he had changed his mind about killing himself not any concerns she may held about the nature of their relationship.
The most worry for some jury members (mostly the women) had been about finding the accused guilty on facts of law when they felt morally there was no crime in assisting in euthanasia. And some worried about what penalty would be given to the accused should they find him guilty – others were very clear that the sentence was not their responsibility, that was the judge’s obligation.
In a final sound bite of the documentary the prosecution barrister stated that to her knowledge no jury had incorrectly convicted an innocent person but she was very sure that some juries had allowed guilty people to go free. The balance of proof by prosecutors had to be high to get a conviction.
Sounds like a pretty good outcome. But I have to say some of the ‘out there’ things that were said by some of the jury members (my peers!) and personality clashing and bullying that occurred were very disturbing to see. My conclusion - assuming these jury deliberations are the norm - it is a very good thing it isn’t recorded in real cases and I in no way look forward to be called for jury duty, especially if it was along and difficult trial.
TK
Post a Comment