Are Jury Citations truly random?

[SydR]

10 days ago Mrs Syd received a jury citation in the post. As an essential worker playing her part during the pandemic she got an excusal letter from her boss and sent it in. She is waiting to hear back.

Today I also received a jury citation in the post.

First time ever both either of us have received one and odd both arrived so close together. So my question is are these truly random? If so I might put the lottery on!

[blackal]

could be that 'random' just means they work their way through the surname alphabet................ "let's do Bs and Rs"

I don't think it is on a par with "Ball set 4 and Guenevier" - doesn't need to be.

[SydR]

I should add that from a team of 35 at work 12 have had citations in the past 6 months.

Looks more like they are randomly going through our payroll list

[dkpw]

Yes genuinely random, certainly here in Scotland. Your name is picked electronically from the electoral register.

I'm surprised citations are still being issued, all but a handful of very serious cases are on hold here until the end of February.

Personally speaking, I wouldn't want to be performing jury service at present, even if the courts say everything is safe.

[SydR]

Certainly locally they are running court sessions in local cinemas! No idea how it works in practice though.

A moot point anyway. As an essential worker my excusal letter has already gone in. I guess, by the frequency I am heading of citations, it must be a much more regular occurrence in recent months.

[jwg663]

Yes genuinely random, certainly here in Scotland. Your name is picked electronically from the electoral register.

I'm surprised citations are still being issued, all but a handful of very serious cases are on hold here until the end of February.

Personally speaking, I wouldn't want to be performing jury service at present, even if the courts say everything is safe.

I'm in Ayrshire. My wife's received a citation for jury duty at the local Sheriff Court from 01.02.21. It's being held in the local flea-pit, with proceedings over video-link. Upon investigation, she's found out that it's very likely that she'll be appointed to a case as limited numbers of potential jurors are being cited.

She's no reasonable cause to request exemption. She's also minimised contact with other people since last March. To say she's concerned about attending is an understatement.

Edit: this is the third time in twelve years she's received a citation for JS.

[dkpw]

I'm in Ayrshire. My wife's received a citation for jury duty at the local Sheriff Court from 01.02.21. It's being held in the local flea-pit, with proceedings over video-link. Upon investigation, she's found out that it's very likely that she'll be appointed to a case as limited numbers of potential jurors are being cited.

She's no reasonable cause to request exemption. She's also minimised contact with other people since last March. To say she's concerned about attending is an understatement.

Edit: this is the third time in twelve years she's received a citation for JS.

I'm sorry to hear about your wife's predicament. I truly empathise, as I too have been essentially in lockdown for the same length of time. I also would have serious concerns if I were to be called up.

I looked at the consequences of not attending, and it's a £1,000 fine for starters, without a valid excuse. Other penalties can follow.

My only thought would be to suggest a call to your GP to explain the situation and ask if they had a spare vaccine available, to see if they could fit her in.

All the best.

[thegreatdogwood]

I was called up and did jury service for the third time in 10 years a month ago.

There were a limited number of courts in operation so less jurors than normal and we were spread out across 3 benches in the main court room and assigned one of the smaller courts at a jurors deliberation room.

They tried to have sensible measures in place, the reality is I'm not going to pretend it was a robust system. On the first day the gents WC was out of use, they had about 40 jurors sharing the same toilet, going in one at a time. When you line up to go into court, there is not enough room to stay at least 2m away from fellow jurors. Some of them were heavy smokers and when they wanted a smoking break, ALL of you had to walk through the whole building and to outside to stay together.

When I've done it before, there was a lot of sitting around to see if you would be assigned a case. This time I was assigned a trial within 10 mins of arrival, they are trying to only ask you to attend if they are confident you will be needed. If your trial ends after you have served for more than a week you will be discharged, not assigned another case.

The very worst thing was that after 6 days of service and debating evidence, we could not arrive at a unanimous verdict. I clearly can't give specifics as am hoping it will go to re-trial, suffice to say that it is hard to comprehend ever being presented with clearer evidence, yet if you have 3+ liberal minded individuals that feel you can't convict someone because it means they will go to prison for a long time which will ruin their lives, the whole process is futile.

That's my service filled for at least another two years though!

[xellos99]

I was called up and did jury service for the third time in 10 years a month ago.

There were a limited number of courts in operation so less jurors than normal and we were spread out across 3 benches in the main court room and assigned one of the smaller courts at a jurors deliberation room.

They tried to have sensible measures in place, the reality is I'm not going to pretend it was a robust system. On the first day the gents WC was out of use, they had about 40 jurors sharing the same toilet, going in one at a time. When you line up to go into court, there is not enough room to stay at least 2m away from fellow jurors. Some of them were heavy smokers and when they wanted a smoking break, ALL of you had to walk through the whole building and to outside to stay together.

When I've done it before, there was a lot of sitting around to see if you would be assigned a case. This time I was assigned a trial within 10 mins of arrival, they are trying to only ask you to attend if they are confident you will be needed. If your trial ends after you have served for more than a week you will be discharged, not assigned another case.

The very worst thing was that after 6 days of service and debating evidence, we could not arrive at a unanimous verdict. I clearly can't give specifics as am hoping it will go to re-trial, suffice to say that it is hard to comprehend ever being presented with clearer evidence, yet if you have 3+ liberal minded individuals that feel you can't convict someone because it means they will go to prison for a long time which will ruin their lives, the whole process is futile.

That's my service filled for at least another two years though!

it cant be that random if you had 3 in ten years and i had zero and im near 40. I would imagine living nearer the courts and higher crime area means some postcodes will get picked on more than others.

[thegreatdogwood]

it cant be that random if you had 3 in ten years and i had zero and im near 40. I would imagine living nearer the courts and higher crime area means some postcodes will get picked on more than others.

I think catchment comes into play. I'm in Winchester, which is low crime but has a tier 1 court which has the highest level trials in addition to local issues, so from memory about 8 or 9 court rooms. So the case I was on involved something that happened a fair distance away, it just meant that Winchester was the nearest tier 1 court. I gather they pick jurors randomly but from within parameters to maintain a cross section of demographic. That having been said, fellow jurors came from a far enough spread that I would have thought there would be enough others in my demographic not to need to keep calling me up!

[TaketheCannoli]

That's incredibly disheartening and not something I'd considered before. Surely you're meant to assess the evidence and make a decision on guilt rather than consider the potential sentence and impacts?

I'm 48 and have never been called up.

....suffice to say that it is hard to comprehend ever being presented with clearer evidence, yet if you have 3+ liberal minded individuals that feel you can't convict someone because it means they will go to prison for a long time which will ruin their lives, the whole process is futile.

[snowman]

I guess equally you could have 3 people who think that anyone who doesn't own an expensive car and went to Oxbridge is obviously a criminal and must be guilty otherwise the case would never have reached court.

I thought jury selection was supposed to weed out those with obvious biases?

I'm 59 this year and I've never been called, neither has my wife, who is 61.

If, though, it wasn't random, wouldn't people only be called once?

That said, I don't actually know how it works.

M

[thegreatdogwood]

That's incredibly disheartening and not something I'd considered before. Surely you're meant to assess the evidence and make a decision on guilt rather than consider the potential sentence and impacts?

I'm 48 and have never been called up.

Indeed you are. The worst bit for me was when we were back in court and the foreman returned that at least 10 of us could not agree on a verdict. I glanced over to look at the judge, then the prosecution barrister and the policeman that led the case. You could tell what they were all thinking and there is no way of them knowing which way any of us voted.

The really sad thing is said individuals are convinced they have carried out some great humanitarian act. I suspect they won't (like the rest of us) go online to see if there is any info published about "previous" for the defendant (you are NOT allowed to do your own research while the case is live). You don't get to hear about that in the case and of course the liberals then tell you that of course the defendant is of good character otherwise the prosecution would say otherwise - totally missing the point that the prosecution can't refer to that, to the contrary it is for the defence to paint a picture of good character, if they don't do so then they are either poorly representing their client or they are not of good previous character.

It was no great surprise to see they did have relevant "previous", I feel so sorry for the poor police if they put so much effort into a case that is clear as day, only for 3+ jurors to block the process. In my case I'm hoping it does go to re-trial (yep, at another large cost to us tax payers) in the hope that a second jury has at least 10 people with a backbone that can reach a decision based on evidence and not consequences to the defendant. Never mind about the poor victim, after all they can't change that...

[dkpw]

I thought jury selection was supposed to weed out those with obvious biases?
I'm 59 this year and I've never been called, neither has my wife, who is 61.
If, though, it wasn't random, wouldn't people only be called once?
That said, I don't actually know how it works.
M

I'm 56 and have never been called but I served in the CPS for 12 years and was barred for a further 10 years on leaving. It would just be my luck to be called now, during a pandemic.

Jury selection is strictly regulated and your point about obvious biases only happens in American courtroom dramas. Both prosecution and defence can challenge jurors, for specific reasons including not being able to speak English to an acceptable level, or not being able to read and so would not be able to follow evidence in say fraud cases. The full procedure is set out here if you would like to check.

Indeed you are. The worst bit for me was when we were back in court and the foreman returned that at least 10 of us could not agree on a verdict. I glanced over to look at the judge, then the prosecution barrister and the policeman that led the case. You could tell what they were all thinking and there is no way of them knowing which way any of us voted.

The really sad thing is said individuals are convinced they have carried out some great humanitarian act. I suspect they won't (like the rest of us) go online to see if there is any info published about "previous" for the defendant (you are NOT allowed to do your own research while the case is live). You don't get to hear about that in the case and of course the liberals then tell you that of course the defendant is of good character otherwise the prosecution would say otherwise - totally missing the point that the prosecution can't refer to that, to the contrary it is for the defence to paint a picture of good character, if they don't do so then they are either poorly representing their client or they are not of good previous character.

It was no great surprise to see they did have relevant "previous", I feel so sorry for the poor police if they put so much effort into a case that is clear as day, only for 3+ jurors to block the process. In my case I'm hoping it does go to re-trial (yep, at another large cost to us tax payers) in the hope that a second jury has at least 10 people with a backbone that can reach a decision based on evidence and not consequences to the defendant. Never mind about the poor victim, after all they can't change that...

I am very familiar with the look of shock on jurors' faces when having found someone not guilty, they hear about the counts on the indictment defendants pleaded guilty to before the trial and then their previous is read out prior to sentencing, which very often includes offences of the same nature for which they have just been acquitted.

However, that's the justice system we have and also the jury system.

You thought the defendant was guilty, they didn't. The basis for their decision may not seem just but in that case, you could have written a note to the judge to ask whether considering the likely sentence is an appropriate task for the jury and a valid reason for acquittal? He or she could then have provided clear guidance. Whether it would have changed their views is another question.

[thegreatdogwood]

You thought the defendant was guilty, they didn't. The basis for their decision may not seem just but in that case, you could have written a note to the judge to ask whether considering the likely sentence is an appropriate task for the jury and a valid reason for acquittal? He or she could then have provided clear guidance. Whether it would have changed their views is another question.

We did send a note and also reminded said jurors that the final guidance from the judge was to avoid speculation and judge the case on the facts. He even gave them the prompt that if they would have found the defendant guilty if the outcome (ergo sentence) would have been different, then guilty is the correct verdict.

Everything defaulted back to "well I'm just not comfortable finding them guilty as they will go to prison for something that was over in seconds - I'm not going to change my mind". You couldn't make it up, in other countries there would have been a lynch mob as nine others had given up time in the most difficult of circumstances only to see justice not served and the whole process frustrated.

[Alansmithee]

it cant be that random if you had 3 in ten years and i had zero and im near 40.

The fact that someone is selected twice and then a third time are all discreet independent events not linked together in a way that it changes the probability of being selected (Conditional probability). It's just the human brain likes to build patterns.

[bootneck]

Ive only ever done jury duty once 2 cases and I’m convinced some of my fellow jurors would have still said innocent if they’d actually seen it with their own eyes the evidence was that clear , guilty in the end but there was a fair bit of arguing. I really enjoyed that case, the second case I honestly 12 years later still think about occasionally truly horrific and now if i suspected anything similar in a case I’d refuse to take part, 20 years of daily torture would be too good for that scumbag. I do have a vague memory that we wouldn’t be asked to serve again but in all honesty the whole end of service is a bit of a blur to me due to that case I’m not sure if that was just wishful thinking.

[snowman]

Jury selection is strictly regulated and your point about obvious biases only happens in American courtroom dramas. Both prosecution and defence can challenge jurors, for specific reasons including not being able to speak English to an acceptable level, or not being able to read and so would not be able to follow evidence in say fraud cases. The full procedure is set out here if you would like to check.

Ah, yes, too many John Grisham and Michael Connelly novels being read here, I think

I knew there was some kind of selection process here, but I didn't realise it was less 'flexible' than the US.

Perhaps more people are being called up currently, to allow for more to have to withdraw from cases due to COVID exposure?

M

[Alansmithee]

Ah, yes, too many John Grisham and Michael Connelly novels being read here, I think

M

You might be disappointed that people banging gavels is largely fiction as well....

[dkpw]

We did send a note and also reminded said jurors that the final guidance from the judge was to avoid speculation and judge the case on the facts. He even gave them the prompt that if they would have found the defendant guilty if the outcome (ergo sentence) would have been different, then guilty is the correct verdict.

Everything defaulted back to "well I'm just not comfortable finding them guilty as they will go to prison for something that was over in seconds - I'm not going to change my mind". You couldn't make it up, in other countries there would have been a lynch mob as nine others had given up time in the most difficult of circumstances only to see justice not served and the whole process frustrated.

Thank you for the update. You and your fellow jurors clearly did what you thought was correct. After many years in the courts, I know there's no accounting for juries.

I was once in court on a case where two City of London officers were badly assaulted by some random thug. It happens that they were patrolling a street which boardered the Met and two Met officers were on the other pavement. I know, four foot officers on one street, a rare event nowadays.

The Met constables saw the City chaps being attacked and rushed over to assist. This was witnessed by three independent members of the public, who came to court and gave evidence. So there was evidence from four police officers, two from a different force and three civilian witnesses.

The jury were in their room for a mere five minutes, we could hear them laughing loudly in court. They came back and acquitted. Nothing to be done.

[snowman]

You might be disappointed that people banging gavels is largely fiction as well....

I knew that

M

[dkpw]

I'm 56 and have never been called but I served in the CPS for 12 years and was barred for a further 10 years on leaving. It would just be my luck to be called now, during a pandemic.

Thump!

Yes that was the sound of my first ever jury citation landing on my doormat this morning.

I mean, they've had plenty of time to ask me before now but no, do it in the middle of a pandemic. FFS.

Service is to start ten weeks after my first vaccination, so I can foresee me being lucky again with a second vaccination call during jury duty.

At least I've had one, so it's a better situation than when I posted above but really!

[RobDad]

52 and was called twice within 5 years - I have to admit I found the process really interesting and wouldn’t be upset if called again. My wife was also called within the same 5 year period so it does seem odd if it is truly ‘random’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk