Jury confidentiality

[Austin Prefect]

Would it be acceptable for a jury to pass a note to the judge after the verdict saying something like 'we would have found the defendant guilty a lot quicker if inspector Lestrade hadn't blatantly tried to over egg the pudding, we were almost tempted to let him off to prove a point.'?

Or would this come under discussing what was said in the jury room?

[snuffy]

The jury (when in the jury room) can ask the judge for clarification during a trail (it will be answered in the court room, with all parties present).

But once the verdict has been passed, I would assume thats the end of any further jury involvement.

[Drumroll]

But isn't that sort of thing the whole essence of a jury Deciding who's version of events is more believable giving the evidence supplied.

[Jamescrs]

I think this post is a good argument for the suggestion being put forward that trials should take place without a jury.

[2020vision]

Austin Prefect said:

Would it be acceptable for a jury to pass a note to the judge after the verdict saying something like 'we would have found the defendant guilty a lot quicker if inspector Lestrade hadn't blatantly tried to over egg the pudding, we were almost tempted to let him off to prove a point.'?

Or would this come under discussing what was said in the jury room?

It would come under “not knowing what a jury must do”.

[Austin Prefect]

2020vision said:

Austin Prefect said:

Would it be acceptable for a jury to pass a note to the judge after the verdict saying something like 'we would have found the defendant guilty a lot quicker if inspector Lestrade hadn't blatantly tried to over egg the pudding, we were almost tempted to let him off to prove a point.'?

Or would this come under discussing what was said in the jury room?

It would come under not knowing what a jury must do .

OK. So if you're on a jury and are told what a jury must and must not do, including must not disclose discussions in the jury room. Would communicating a consensus purely to the judge have you had up for contempt of court, or would the judge just put the note in the bin? In the death penalty days juries did sometimes include a request for clemency along with the verdict, which sounds pretty close to the line.

[borcy]

They could pass it to the judge but i don't see why? What are they trying to achieve?

[ATG]

What would be the point?

If the witness was hamming it up, do you think the judge won't have noticed?

[Austin Prefect]

I'm not saying they should do it, I'm not asking whether they should do it. I'm asking whether it would constitute contempt of court if for whatever reason a jury did make a general comment like this.

[2020vision]

Austin Prefect said:

I'm not saying they should do it, I'm not asking whether they should do it. I'm asking whether it would constitute contempt of court if for whatever reason a jury did make a general comment like this.

When the jury have made their decision that’s their job done.
They don’t get to pass opinions on the quality of the witnesses. It’s got nothing to do with them after the verdict is concluded.
If the jury believe the witness evidence is not suitable then they make their verdict decision based upon that without giving comments on the quality of individual witnesses.
If the witness was so poor it amounted to being unsuitable/inadmissible, then the judge won’t need your advice to sort that out.

[2020vision]

Austin Prefect said:

I'm not saying they should do it, I'm not asking whether they should do it. I'm asking whether it would constitute contempt of court if for whatever reason a jury did make a general comment like this.

It’s not contempt, but if something was going to cause a judge to tell the jury to wind their necks in, what you are suggesting would fit the bill I would say.

[Monkeylegend]

2020vision said:

Austin Prefect said:

I'm not saying they should do it, I'm not asking whether they should do it. I'm asking whether it would constitute contempt of court if for whatever reason a jury did make a general comment like this.

When the jury have made their decision that s their job done.
They don t get to pass opinions on the quality of the witnesses. It s got nothing to do with them after the verdict is concluded.
If the jury believe the witness evidence is not suitable then they make their verdict decision based upon that without giving comments on the quality of individual witnesses.
If the witness was so poor it amounted to being unsuitable/inadmissible, then the judge won t need your advice to sort that out.

No st Sherlock.

[Austin Prefect]

2020vision said:

Austin Prefect said:

I'm not saying they should do it, I'm not asking whether they should do it. I'm asking whether it would constitute contempt of court if for whatever reason a jury did make a general comment like this.

It s not contempt, but if something was going to cause a judge to tell the jury to wind their necks in, what you are suggesting would fit the bill I would say.

Thank you. Someone has answered the actual question.

[2020vision]

Monkeylegend said:

2020vision said:

Austin Prefect said:

I'm not saying they should do it, I'm not asking whether they should do it. I'm asking whether it would constitute contempt of court if for whatever reason a jury did make a general comment like this.

When the jury have made their decision that s their job done.
They don t get to pass opinions on the quality of the witnesses. It s got nothing to do with them after the verdict is concluded.
If the jury believe the witness evidence is not suitable then they make their verdict decision based upon that without giving comments on the quality of individual witnesses.
If the witness was so poor it amounted to being unsuitable/inadmissible, then the judge won t need your advice to sort that out.

No st Sherlock.

Not sure what your input achieved there.
If you already know this just but-out.
I was helping the OP. Who now appears to have been helped.
Not everyone would know as much as you obviously think you know. Smart-ar’e

[Monkeylegend]

2020vision said:

Monkeylegend said:

2020vision said:

Austin Prefect said:

I'm not saying they should do it, I'm not asking whether they should do it. I'm asking whether it would constitute contempt of court if for whatever reason a jury did make a general comment like this.

When the jury have made their decision that s their job done.
They don t get to pass opinions on the quality of the witnesses. It s got nothing to do with them after the verdict is concluded.
If the jury believe the witness evidence is not suitable then they make their verdict decision based upon that without giving comments on the quality of individual witnesses.
If the witness was so poor it amounted to being unsuitable/inadmissible, then the judge won t need your advice to sort that out.

No st Sherlock.

Not sure what your input achieved there.
If you already know this just but-out.
I was helping the OP. Who now appears to have been helped.
Not everyone would know as much as you obviously think you know. Smart-ar e

Whoosh.................................

It was said in jest, just my weird sense of humour which you are entitled to ignore