I have jury service early next year and had wondered what to wear and was going to go for the suit and tie, just as it seems the right thing to do - a bit like a job interview, you want to show you are taking it seriously.
It's strange how some people view what is just a smart way to dress.
Smart casual is the way to go.
Don't want to look like a tramp either.
Take your cue from everyone else. If all the chaps wear a jacket and tie fair enough. But take a look around you. If you are only one of a handful like that then next day open neck shirt and comfy sweater. Makes you look less threatening to the accused!
Take your cue from everyone else. If all the chaps wear a jacket and tie fair enough. But take a look around you. If you are only one of a handful like that then next day open neck shirt and comfy sweater. Makes you look less threatening to the accused!
When i did jury duty i wore a flowing red robe and a long white wig.
Juries really are a massive lottery, and there is no doubt many people on them have prejudices, are too thick to understand what's happening are not interested etc.
In some areas of America, jury selection is incredibly involved, as both sides try to get a jury that will give them the decision. I'm not sure how they add to justice.
despite the high responsibility id quite like to do jury service. But knowing me i wouldn't get called. It must be surreal though having seen many on tv to actually be a jury member on a real case. It would be a very interesting and eye opening experience.
despite the high responsibility id quite like to do jury service. But knowing me i wouldn't get called. It must be surreal though having seen many on tv to actually be a jury member on a real case. It would be a very interesting and eye opening experience.
For the majority of the time it's very tedious. I read the whole of Stephen King's Under the Dome whilst i was in the waiting room and i got called up for three cases. Some people there never got called once.
I cannot do jury service as I am a practising solicitor. However, I've sat through many court cases in my time and they really are not as glamourous as the telly makes out. Tedious. I've seen jurors and judges nod off!
u r supposed to give a verdict according to the law. which will be explained for a particular case.
you are unikely to be called at 9 am 1st day and possibly might spend a whole week then discharged without serving. unlikely but depends. take a few books and maybe a loaded mp3 player in case ......
the food can be variable and you probably will be asked not to leave the waiting area. maybe taked some snacks and packed lunch. and bottle of water.
the clerks try to assign sensibly but sometimes the unexpected happens and a case can go on some weeks. the judge may discharge jury if this causes gross problems for some jurers ....
achieving a verdict after summings up means your are all shut together in a room usually with 1 toilet but otherwise fairly bare. a bit uncomfortable. how long this takes of course depends on evidence presented.
my own single expereience a few years back was dire. everything was arranged for the convenience of local staff and they had little regard for the comfort of jurers ...
clothing yeah. amazing how we judge people by such 1st impressions. but likely to be correct. somebody dressed formally is likely to be conformist and therefore "tough minded" (eyesenk !) and authoritarian ......
With law becoming increasingly more complicated the jury system should be ditched.
It doesn't take into consideration anyone's prejudices, level of intelligence or background.
I once witnessed a case whereby two individuals were caught several times over a period of time stealing from a cash till at work at the end of the day when cashing up. The whole thing was on hidden CCTV and they would even keep look out as they each did it.
Somehow they were found not guilty as they claimed they were going to bring the money back but as they were sacked prior to returning to work they were never given the opportunity to.
It was the most ludicrous decision I have ever seen in my life and it made me wonder if someone can do something that blatant and get away with it, how many other things do people get away with?
I cannot do jury service as I am a practising solicitor. However, I've sat through many court cases in my time and they really are not as glamourous as the telly makes out. Tedious. I've seen jurors and judges nod off!
My other half did it several years ago. He got two cases - the first was an attempted Post Office robbery, but they were so incompetent (they stalled the getaway car and it wouldn't re-start) the whole court was in fits of laughter. The judge kept calling to order, trying to get cross, but struggling to stop his own giggling.
His other case was crushingly boring, and at one stage the judge noticed a woman on the jury was knitting. He fined her £50 for each line she'd knitted.
I found it fascinating when I did it a couple of years back.
Yes it can be boring at times with all the waiting around, but you're doing an important job and frankly it was nice to do something so different from my normal jobs.
it can be quite distressing hearing the cases, but like I said I found it fascinating - and I met some nice people too (my fellow jurors)
we had a defendant on 1 case who was incontinent, so much so that he actually had to have a bucket with him the whole time 'just in case'. This problem was caused by alcohol (apparently).
It was somewhat amusing to see him suddenly lurch for the bucket at one point and sure enough in front of all the jury, the judge etc, he does his thing
The second case I had lasted a week - that was a tasty one. I volunteered to be foreman and I have to confess it was quite hard saying 'guilty' knowing what my words would do...
Bit strange, that's not how it's supposed to work.
A decisions could be passed on a majority (10 people I think) however if there was an overriding matter that the jury could not be sure on, they were advised to offer a verdict of not guilty.
If they were unsure on certain points, they should not just be thinking sod it, send 'em down.
Had two cases when I did it.
Was shown graphic images of a hammer attack, then the judge sent us out. We came in again, judge told us they'd entered the wrong plea and directed the foreman to give a guilty verdict.
Second was based solely on CCTV - "conspiracy to steal". Hung jury. Ended up in a queue behind the defendants a couple of days later. Wasn't recognised though.
Got excused early because they had no cases coming up.
Nearly got on a 6 month fraud trial but they didn't pick my name out of the hat.
got convicted of attempted murder? what was the sentence given?
....they both got 10 years each.
The judge sentenced them there and then to start their 'time' right at that moment. The judge finished off by saying them classic lines, '...bailiff (or whatever he's called?!), take them down'.
No if it was a serious crime then I would base on the evidence but for something trivial like a student stealing a traffic cone I would find not guilty.
People like you are the reason I am not convinced jurys are such a good idea sometimes. For every person like you who would predetermine innocence you just know there will be someone who would equally decide on guilt before they have even been given all the details or had a chance to consider it all.
Oh and I presume you are meaning more serious crimes as I am sure you aware stealing a traffic cone wouldn't make you end up in front of a jury.
People like you are the reason I am not convinced jurys are such a good idea sometimes. For every person like you who would predetermine innocence you just know there will be someone who would equally decide on guilt before they have even been given all the details or had a chance to consider it all.
Oh and I presume you are meaning more serious crimes as I am sure you aware stealing a traffic cone wouldn't make you end up in front of a jury.
Well it's better that people like me are on jury service than have 1 judge deciding someone's fate
Comments
Smart casual is the way to go.
Don't want to look like a tramp either.
Take your cue from everyone else. If all the chaps wear a jacket and tie fair enough. But take a look around you. If you are only one of a handful like that then next day open neck shirt and comfy sweater. Makes you look less threatening to the accused!
When i did jury duty i wore a flowing red robe and a long white wig.
They wouldn't allow me on the panel.
They looked forward to it, with such comments as
"if he's black, he's guilty".
"if it's anything to do with drugs or paedophilia, they're going down".
"it's going to be great. I'll be playing God with people's lives".
In some areas of America, jury selection is incredibly involved, as both sides try to get a jury that will give them the decision. I'm not sure how they add to justice.
For the majority of the time it's very tedious. I read the whole of Stephen King's Under the Dome whilst i was in the waiting room and i got called up for three cases. Some people there never got called once.
What if the family or friends of the accused hunt me down?
I have always worried about that. My mum and dad had to give evidence to something they had witnessed once and it always went through my mind.
you are unikely to be called at 9 am 1st day and possibly might spend a whole week then discharged without serving. unlikely but depends. take a few books and maybe a loaded mp3 player in case ......
the food can be variable and you probably will be asked not to leave the waiting area. maybe taked some snacks and packed lunch. and bottle of water.
the clerks try to assign sensibly but sometimes the unexpected happens and a case can go on some weeks. the judge may discharge jury if this causes gross problems for some jurers ....
achieving a verdict after summings up means your are all shut together in a room usually with 1 toilet but otherwise fairly bare. a bit uncomfortable. how long this takes of course depends on evidence presented.
my own single expereience a few years back was dire. everything was arranged for the convenience of local staff and they had little regard for the comfort of jurers ...
I would like to gently suggest you get to know some different people.
If you are called, you won't have a choice unless you have a very good reason.
It doesn't take into consideration anyone's prejudices, level of intelligence or background.
I once witnessed a case whereby two individuals were caught several times over a period of time stealing from a cash till at work at the end of the day when cashing up. The whole thing was on hidden CCTV and they would even keep look out as they each did it.
Somehow they were found not guilty as they claimed they were going to bring the money back but as they were sacked prior to returning to work they were never given the opportunity to.
It was the most ludicrous decision I have ever seen in my life and it made me wonder if someone can do something that blatant and get away with it, how many other things do people get away with?
My other half did it several years ago. He got two cases - the first was an attempted Post Office robbery, but they were so incompetent (they stalled the getaway car and it wouldn't re-start) the whole court was in fits of laughter. The judge kept calling to order, trying to get cross, but struggling to stop his own giggling.
His other case was crushingly boring, and at one stage the judge noticed a woman on the jury was knitting. He fined her £50 for each line she'd knitted.
I actually got off two times when my employer wrote saying how indispensable I was (!) but there was no escape the third time I was called.
I avoided my first call up because i was unconscious that day.
Yes it can be boring at times with all the waiting around, but you're doing an important job and frankly it was nice to do something so different from my normal jobs.
it can be quite distressing hearing the cases, but like I said I found it fascinating - and I met some nice people too (my fellow jurors)
we had a defendant on 1 case who was incontinent, so much so that he actually had to have a bucket with him the whole time 'just in case'. This problem was caused by alcohol (apparently).
It was somewhat amusing to see him suddenly lurch for the bucket at one point and sure enough in front of all the jury, the judge etc, he does his thing
The second case I had lasted a week - that was a tasty one. I volunteered to be foreman and I have to confess it was quite hard saying 'guilty' knowing what my words would do...
No but I used to be a solicitors clerk for counsel and form part of the defence team.
If there was even a shred of doubt then the judge told the jury to find not guilty.
A decisions could be passed on a majority (10 people I think) however if there was an overriding matter that the jury could not be sure on, they were advised to offer a verdict of not guilty.
If they were unsure on certain points, they should not just be thinking sod it, send 'em down.
Was shown graphic images of a hammer attack, then the judge sent us out. We came in again, judge told us they'd entered the wrong plea and directed the foreman to give a guilty verdict.
Second was based solely on CCTV - "conspiracy to steal". Hung jury. Ended up in a queue behind the defendants a couple of days later. Wasn't recognised though.
Got excused early because they had no cases coming up.
Nearly got on a 6 month fraud trial but they didn't pick my name out of the hat.
....they both got 10 years each.
The judge sentenced them there and then to start their 'time' right at that moment. The judge finished off by saying them classic lines, '...bailiff (or whatever he's called?!), take them down'.
People like you are the reason I am not convinced jurys are such a good idea sometimes. For every person like you who would predetermine innocence you just know there will be someone who would equally decide on guilt before they have even been given all the details or had a chance to consider it all.
Oh and I presume you are meaning more serious crimes as I am sure you aware stealing a traffic cone wouldn't make you end up in front of a jury.
Well it's better that people like me are on jury service than have 1 judge deciding someone's fate