ronthenekred Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Is there a legal reason why the defendants don't make a counter claim in respect to the allegations made by the plaintiffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 And you can enlighten us as to your extensive experience listening to trials from start to finish and the summing up? How many have you sat through ? It's still an insult to your fellow citizens who sit on juries to suggest they blindly follow a perceived view from a judge - who tells them as a matter of law that the facts are entitled a matter for them to decide and they must ignore what they may think the judge's view is. If using your example you took a sample jury from let's say SF users allowed them to listen to the evidence and a summing up - the result would be what the judge told them to and told them do would it ? I think not. A judge in summing up will advise the jury on key facts on both prosecution and defence and guide possible verdicts that can be reached. The only problem with Juries is that as it becomes towards the end of their 2 week standard time doing this service, some want to get home and will soon reach a verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 A judge in summing up will advise the jury on key facts on both prosecution and defence and guide possible verdicts that can be reached. The only problem with Juries is that as it becomes towards the end of their 2 week standard time doing this service, some want to get home and will soon reach a verdict. If you apply that reasoning towards the jury you can also apply it to the judge and his summing up, he also has a home to go to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 In the case of a trial starting on monday for 1 day that argument falls flat. When juries are asked to sit on trials lasting longer than 2 weeks they are asked whether it would be difficult for them to do that. Are they going on holiday, are self employed and sitting on a jury for a month would cause real hardship and they may well be excused. Judges "guiding" verdicts? I suspect you mean directing them on the law as to possible alternative verdicts - if you are not sure joe bloggs intended really serious harm to fred smith with intent to cause really serious harm but you are sure he did cause that harm deliberately and unlawfully there is the alternative verdict of etc etc - and if the judge did not do that it would cost us all much more money for the court of appeal to be asked to put that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 If you apply that reasoning towards the jury you can also apply it to the judge and his summing up, he also has a home to go to. Nah the judge will still turn up to court on the next Monday ---------- Post added 21-01-2014 at 16:56 ---------- In the case of a trial starting on monday for 1 day that argument falls flat. When juries are asked to sit on trials lasting longer than 2 weeks they are asked whether it would be difficult for them to do that. Are they going on holiday, are self employed and sitting on a jury for a month would cause real hardship and they may well be excused. Judges "guiding" verdicts? I suspect you mean directing them on the law as to possible alternative verdicts - if you are not sure joe bloggs intended really serious harm to fred smith with intent to cause really serious harm but you are sure he did cause that harm deliberately and unlawfully there is the alternative verdict of etc etc - and if the judge did not do that it would cost us all much more money for the court of appeal to be asked to put that right. Yes that's what I meant The point I meant with soon reaching a verdict, this happened when I served, someone wanted to get off as they wanted to get shopping in it was the weekend and the last week, the court was probably presuming a verdict would be reached, it could have and should have gone onto the next week ( it wasn't a big trial it was the next case I was put on, it lasted 2 days but should have lasted three really continuing deliberation. Well that's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think he was just in court to plead, he will stand trial on April 30. Thank you for that, I thought it was strange but you have explained it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizsterJones Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 And you can enlighten us as to your extensive experience listening to trials from start to finish and the summing up? How many have you sat through ? It's still an insult to your fellow citizens who sit on juries to suggest they blindly follow a perceived view from a judge - who tells them as a matter of law that the facts are entitled a matter for them to decide and they must ignore what they may think the judge's view is. If using your example you took a sample jury from let's say SF users allowed them to listen to the evidence and a summing up - the result would be what the judge told them to and told them do would it ? I think not. It was my job,and thats all I can say about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I am afraid I don't follow "it was my job". You either have proper knowledge and experience which informs us when you make comments. Do you agree that it is an insult to fellow citizens that they blindly follow the judge or not ? If that observation held any credence which it does not - presumably there would be far more convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizsterJones Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I am afraid I don't follow "it was my job". You either have proper knowledge and experience which informs us when you make comments. Do you agree that it is an insult to fellow citizens that they blindly follow the judge or not ? If that observation held any credence which it does not - presumably there would be far more convictions. i suggest you have not attended any jury trials or if you have you have taken little notice of proceedings,I am of course talking numerous trials ,you cant make any observations that carry relevance just by going to see your mate up on a section 38 charge.If you care to stand back and think about it,12 good men and true to could quite plausibly include people with a smattering of education,do you really expect them to follow the procedures of a court case in the capacity to make a concious decision to convict or acquit without any help from some one,that my friend is possibly the Judges main reason for being there,or at least a good part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Tell us how many trials you have "attended" I don't have any mates up on a s38 charge not any bloke down the pub whose uncle knows a bloke whose mate was done for GBH I have however prosecuted and defended all manner of mates for every offence you can think of - What was your job ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.