|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
The Australian system is the same. The benefit is that it keeps the jury safe
from being hounded by the media (or as in this case, duped into shooting one's
mouth off) but does have the problem as previously stated that totally screw-ups
remain hidden forever.
The problem is that the courts seem more preoccupied with perpetuating the myth
of jury infallibility rather than admitting that they can and do stuff up and
fixing their mistakes. My guess is that in spite of Hogan's accidental
confessions, there will be no process to declare the verdict a mistake and to
redo the case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
Our judges are expected to make sure that such thing as denying evidence and
failure to follow instructions do not happen. This trial would have been
declared void, a new trial ordered and the jury members barred from future
selection. Contempt of court might also have come into play. But then on this
case it is unlikely that there would have been a jury anyway.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
UK courts gag you *while you are sitting* on a Jury.
Bugstompers post is about what is supposed to happen while you are serving.
The deliberations are supposed to remain in the deliberation room, what comes
out is a summary and that is the public record.
Once a verdict is in it's all public record and the case and the verdict can be
discussed openly.
The deliberations are a private conversation which takes place in a locked room
(you are actually locked up)
All that said a, UK court would not have put up with an incorrect verdict form,
and they certainly would not have sent the jury back for a 'do over, and please
get it right this time.'
An incorrect/inconsistent verdict would have resulted in a mistrial, and the
first job would have been figuring out how to do the trial properly, because no
Jury is ever going to properly do it's job on 100 pages of instructions and 700
questions.
All that said, of course in the UK, this case would never have made it to a
Jury.
Quite simply before any one wasted all that Jury/Lawyers/Judge/Clerk time Apple
would have had it's so called "patents" tossed back in it's face as
invalid and obvious and exposed itself to possible contempt of court for wasting
the courts time in asking the judicial system to deal with a corporate spat.
Which is of course exactly what happened when they tried it in the UK.
That sounds like a *much* better systems to me.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
