Vicky Pryce Verdict....

[Lockhouse]

They're wavering.....

[Lockhouse]

Retrial!

[cojak]

BBC News - Vicky Pryce jury discharged in Huhne speeding points case

Cue some much needed reviews of the quality and preparation of juries in logical thinking and critical analysis...

[NickFitz]

BBC News - Vicky Pryce jury discharged in Huhne speeding points case

Cue some much needed reviews of the quality and preparation of juries in logical thinking and critical analysis...

The jury asked well-framed questions to ensure that they were acting on a legally sound basis. They seem to have been well-prepared, to have thought logically, and to have critically analysed the nature and quality of the arguments put to them. If the case that was made, on both sides, was insufficient for them to reach a clear verdict then it suggests that the legal profession is in need of review, not the jury.

[cojak]

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

Answer: “The answer to that question is a firm no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.”

Well-framed questions. Right.....

[shaunbhoy]

She is both as ugly and as guilty as sin............all IMHO of course!!

[NickFitz]

Well-framed questions. Right.....

As one legal commentator has pointed out, "Some of those questions look like they're written by members who know the answer in order to 'school' those who they think don't." In other words, it is a question that is very well-framed for the purpose of ensuring that all members of the jury are considering matters correctly.

If all juries asked such questions, rather than reaching a verdict on incorrect grounds, there would be a good deal of money saved in the appeal courts, and fewer miscarriages of justice.

EDIT: here's the full list of questions, posted at lawyer David Allen Green's site: http://jackofkent.com/2013/02/vicky-...ury-questions/

If you can answer all of them in the full and certain knowledge that your answers are unimpeachably correct according to law, congratulations! You win a place on the jury at the retrial

(Bonus mark if you knew that her name is "Vasiliki".)

[cojak]

As one legal commentator has pointed out, "Some of those questions look like they're written by members who know the answer in order to 'school' those who they think don't." In other words, it is a question that is very well-framed for the purpose of ensuring that all members of the jury are considering matters correctly.

If all juries asked such questions, rather than reaching a verdict on incorrect grounds, there would be a good deal of money saved in the appeal courts, and fewer miscarriages of justice.

EDIT: here's the full list of questions, posted at lawyer David Allen Green's site: Vicky Pryce: the Jury Questions | Jack of Kent

If you can answer all of them in the full and certain knowledge that your answers are unimpeachably correct according to law, congratulations! You win a place on the jury at the retrial

(Bonus mark if you knew that her name is "Vasiliki".)

My concern is that such questions have to be asked in the first place (accepting the schooling of jurors, I infer that there is a lack of critical thinking in some of them) so I believe my original comment still stands.

Although I accept that not all jurors are lacking (certainly those doing the schooling weren't).

[NickFitz]

My concern is that such questions have to be asked in the first place (accepting the schooling of jurors, I infer that there is a lack of critical thinking in some of them) so I believe my original comment still stands.

Although I accept that not all jurors are lacking (certainly those doing the schooling weren't).

"2. In the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there is not enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time of when she signed the NIP (between 3rd and 7th May 2003) to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt what should the verdict be = not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict?"

I think I have a good knowledge of the law for a layman, but I confess I'm uncertain about the correct answer to that, to take just one example out of ten.

[Wanderer]

Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?

WTF?

Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is clear to me that you are too stupid to reach a verdict and there will now be a retrial.