Juror jailed for contempt

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by danielf

Not very clearly to me...


I'm a foreigner (and an academic), and I'm a little surprised why it didn't occur to Dr. Dallas to ask the judge for clarification, both where she was confused about what GBH means, and what research she can do. Also, according to the sources quoted, she didn't just advice the other jury members on her findings regarding the meaning of GBH, but rather on the suspect's history of criminal convictions. I'm sure it will have been pointed out to her that this isn't allowed, and I don't buy the language barrier excuse for a minute. Frankly, it looks like Dr. Dallas has been stupid. Perhaps not so much for doing research, but certainly for telling other jury members about her findings.

I fully agree.

She attempted to influence the rest of the jury, which would have prevented a fair trial. Imagine if the defendant had been innocent, but had been found guilty because Mrs Dallas and the rest of the jury had been influenced by her.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by VOICEofJUSTICE

The media as usual is distorting the facts and plainly just making stuff up. For a different account, have a look here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/kenn...id=tSTOavMcDP&

She was told to not research the guy. She found things out about him online. She shared that fact with the jury. She has been punished for it.

Had she kept it to herself she would not be in jail.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by VOICEofJUSTICE

It may not be unbiased but I think it shows the story in a different light and makes you wonder how much of what is written in the press is true and how much is for publicity. She's clearly being used as a scapegoat and the judges just do as they please!

http://davidkesslerauthor.com/?tag=theodora-dallas

As for knowing that you cannot research the case, you'd probably be surprised how many people (particularly foreigners) don't know what the rules are and don't understand them clearly when they've been explained.

The judge didn't believe her idiotic excuses either so he put her in jail for 6 months .There is no need for that petition because there isn't anything wrong with the law .The jury aren't there to base a guilty/innocent verdict on the defendants past behaviour ,they are there to assess the relevant facts presented to them in the court and nothing else and most definately not to use the internet to gather facts on criminal law ,that's what the judge is there for . As for the language barrier well that's just laughable ,she is a university lecturer and has been in the uk for 13 yrs so i would suspect her command of English is just fine

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by danielf

Not very clearly to me...


I'm a foreigner (and an academic), and I'm a little surprised why it didn't occur to Dr. Dallas to ask the judge for clarification, both where she was confused about what GBH means, and what research she can do. Also, according to the sources quoted, she didn't just advice the other jury members on her findings regarding the meaning of GBH, but rather on the suspect's history of criminal convictions. I'm sure it will have been pointed out to her that this isn't allowed, and I don't buy the language barrier excuse for a minute. Frankly, it looks like Dr. Dallas has been stupid. Perhaps not so much for doing research, but certainly for telling other jury members about her findings.

Well said

[papa smurf]

why can't a jury have access to the accused's full criminal history [if they have one ] ??
i mean they might be an habitual criminal who repeats the same type of crimes over and over .

i would have thought it beneficial to a jury to be in possession of all the facts including criminal history

[martyh]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

why can't a jury have access to the accused's full criminal history [if they have one ] ??
i mean they might be an habitual criminal who repeats the same type of crimes over and over .

because knowing a person was/is a criminal is not proof of guilt .

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by martyh

because knowing a person was/is a criminal is not proof of guilt .

i under stand that -but i would still like to know the history of the person if i was on a jury , i mean the judge and the lawyers /barristers know it , why not the jury .

[martyh]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i under stand that -but i would still like to know the history of the person if i was on a jury , i mean the judge and the lawyers /barristers know it , why not the jury .

Because the jury have to arrive at a unbiased verdict based soley on the evidence provided .Any past crimes could unduly influence the jury as to the defendants guilt or innocence .
If you where on a jury and had to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant (for eg GBH)knowing he had commited past similar offences it would be natural to assume that he had commited the one he was on trial for and asumptions are not allowed in court

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Because the jury have to arrive at a unbiased verdict based soley on the evidence provided .Any past crimes could unduly influence the jury as to the defendants guilt or innocence .
If you where on a jury and had to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant (for eg GBH)knowing he had commited past similar offences it would be natural to assume that he had commited the one he was on trial for and asumptions are not allowed in court

so in short i would be able to reach an unbiased verdict because i have no information relevant to the accused's past , that seems like having one arm tied behind my back and a blindfold on .

[martyh]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

so in short i would be able to reach an unbiased verdict because i have no information relevant to the accused's past , that seems like having one arm tied behind my back and a blindfold on .

That's exactly right .If you know the defendants past criminal record it could easily influence a jury's decision towards a guilty one .Look at it another way ,if the jury are told that the defendant has no previous criminal record ,is not known to the police in any way but is charged with GBH ,the jury may think he is he more likely to be innocent and return a innocent verdict based upon his the defendants past and a guilty man goes free .Only the judge is allowed to use past criminal activities when deciding upon a sentence and i think(please correct if i am wrong)only then if the charge is relevant to his past crimes.
The jury should never know anything about peoples past criminal records it would not be a fair trial which is the reason why the trial in this case was abandoned

[cookie_365]

Previous convictions can be included in evidence under certain circumstances, such as where the defendant has previous convictions for similar offences and that actually makes it more likely that they're guilty.

And defendants can include good character evidence too under certain circumstances.

But on the whole, I think the criminal justice system should start treating juries as adults instead of babies. Let them have all the evidence, let both the prosecution and defence justify why it's relevant/not relevant, and let the jurors decide on the arguments.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

why can't a jury have access to the accused's full criminal history [if they have one ] ??
i mean they might be an habitual criminal who repeats the same type of crimes over and over .

i would have thought it beneficial to a jury to be in possession of all the facts including criminal history

Because they are not being tried for previous crimes. Therefore they should not be used to decide if a person is guilty or innocent.

Previous crimes are only taken into account when sentencing. As someone who hasn't learned from a previous punishment may need a more severe sentence to teach them to not commit the crime again.

[martyh]

[QUOTE=cookie_365;35369793]Previous convictions can be included in evidence under certain circumstances, such as where the defendant has previous convictions for similar offences and that actually makes it more likely that they're guilty.

QUOTE]

can you provide a link for that ? because i am fairly certain that the 'likelyhood' of a person being guilty based on past convictions is not how the courts work

I am however quite prepared to be proven wrong as i do know that there have been movements in the past to allow this

But on the whole, I think the criminal justice system should start treating juries as adults instead of babies. Let them have all the evidence, let both the prosecution and defence justify why it's relevant/not relevant, and let the jurors decide on the arguments.

It's not about treating jurors like adults at all ,it's about making sure the defendant gets a fair trial and the factual evidence is not tainted by hearsay and erroneous Internet information

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by martyh

can you provide a link for that ? because i am fairly certain that the 'likelyhood' of a person being guilty based on past convictions is not how the courts work

I am however quite prepared to be proven wrong as i do know that there have been movements in the past to allow this

It's not about treating jurors like adults at all ,it's about making sure the defendant gets a fair trial and the factual evidence is not tainted by hearsay and erroneous Internet information

I can indeed

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/b...cter_evidence/

[martyh]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

I can indeed

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/b...cter_evidence/

indeed you have ,it should be noted that as per your link the judge decides if the 'bad character evidence' is admissable and is presented by the prosecution if allowed ,it is never up to the jury to research any evidence of bad character