hmmm

020 7269 1430

• Communication
• Legal Business
• Real Estate
• Wealth Management

Ten Acts Of Lunacy By Jurors

August 20, 2008

Hot on the heels of the news that a juror in a trial in Newcastle Crown Court caused its collapse after turning amateur sleuth, Simon Jenkins opines in the Times today that the jury system should be scrapped. Here are ten acts of jury madness to suggest that he might just be right.

1. Jurors have been known to play Ouija Boards in order to reach a verdict.

Three jurors in the 1993 trial of Stephen Young for two counts of murder were unable to make up their minds over the defendant’s guilt or innocence. They sought help by using a Ouija board to commune with one of Mr Young’s victims. The spirit of Henry Fuller duly appeared. Fuller had been killed with his wife Nicola, and in his ghostly reincarnation Henry confirmed that Young was the pair’s killer. “Vote guilty tomorrow” was his instruction, via the Ouija board. Young was convicted – and re-convicted at the retrial for the inevitable “material irregularity” in the first proceedings. Photo courtesy of Dragonoak.
2. They are obsessed by Sudoku.

An Australian drugs trial lasting more than three months and costing taxpayers over A$1 million was abandoned after a number of the jurors were found to have spent much of their time engaged in Sudoku puzzles. The judge had a feeling that all was not as it should be when he noticed that some jurors were writing notes vertically rather than horizontally, but one juror insisted that devotion to Sudoku was actually beneficial to justice: “Some of the evidence is rather drawn out and I find it difficult to maintain my attention the whole time,” she was reported to have told Australian Associated Press.

3. Sometimes, sex gets the better of judicial reasoning.

Weeks after the end of one fraud trial, the jury forewoman could contain herself no more. She had been captivated by the prosecuting counsel’s blend of erudition and authority, and so did what any confident person would do: she sent a bottle of champagne to the object of her affections, with a congratulatory note including a phone number and the words: “What’s a lady need to do to get your attention?” Sadly, romance failed to blossom. The lawyer returned the gift, and told the judge and defence lawyers, with the result that the convicted fraudsters immediately lodged an appeal. Photo courtesy of Overge.

4. They are peripatetic.

“It’s the most bizarre jury that I have ever seen,” said Cathianne Linzalone, a member of the Women’s Action Coalition who attended a long-running sexual assault trial in America in the early 90s. “They get up and leave. They talk to each other. Sometimes they just zone out.”

5. When not consulting Ouija boards, they look to the stars.

The defendant on charges of grievous bodily harm might perhaps have chuckled when one of the jurors in his 1998 trial in Tyne Crown Court asked for his star sign. The juror told the judge that if he knew the defendant’s exact time and date of birth he would be able to draw up an astrological chart to determine his guilt. The juror – to his consternation – was discharged (with thanks to Melissa Egan).

6. They make decisions which are downright perverse.

Max Mosley is far from alone in having lurid details of his sexual activities detailed in court. In 1987, notorious madam Cynthia Payne found herself accused of organising numerous sex parties for gain in a house in leafy Streatham. Riotous scenes more appropriate to a Carry On film were narrated to the jury, which evidently enjoyed them – in the teeth of all the evidence, Ms Payne was acquitted. Photo courtesy of Sunday Driver.

7. Jurors can be really, really annoying.

In 1991 a male juror at the Old Bailey constantly interrupted proceedings to ask for evidence to be explained. Not only that, he also sought to argue a variety of legal points from the jury box. When Judge Rucker told him a point he raised was irrelevant, the juror replied: “Well, I think it is relevant.” The other jury members complained and christened the man “Mr Busybody”. Rucker J. ran out of patience and dismissed him.

8. And they’re often lacking in patience.

[display_podcast]

In a 1997 trial at Luton Crown Court a juror told the defendant: “Why don’t you plead guilty? You are f***ing guilty.” The juror told the judge that he had spoken out because “it was an insult to my intelligence for him to plead not guilty”. Judge Wilkie, QC, was forced to order a retrial.

9. They almost certainly have their mobile phones turned on but set to silent – and they cough.

Just as the verdict in the trial of Alan Rashid was about to be announced, a juror coughed and in the process drowned out the word ‘Not’. The judge heard only ‘Guilty’ and duly jailed Rashid for two years and had him escorted to the cells. Fortunately, the blunder was swiftly noted, and Rashid, who had been disconsolate, was set free.

10. Even when apparently asleep, they are actually thinking about sex.

The following anecdote appears in Professor Gary Slapper’s excellent book, How The Law Works.

A woman witness was giving evidence [in an indecency case] and was asked what the man in the dock had said to her. She was too embarrassed to repeat it in open court, so the judge asked her to write it down. She did, and what she wrote was ‘Would you care for a screw?’ This document was passed around the jury until it reached juror number 12, an elderly gentleman who was fast asleep. Sitting next to him was a fairly personable young lady. She read the note, nudged her neighbour and, when he was awake, handed it to him. He woke with a start, read it and, with apparent satisfaction, folded it and put it away carefully in his wallet. When the judge said, ‘Let that be handed up to me,’ the juryman shook his head and replied, ‘It’s a purely private matter, my Lord.’ Image courtesy of Jeffrey Collingwood.

JURIES: WHO NEEDS ‘EM?