decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Misunderstandings | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Interesting verdict in UK court
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 11:53 AM EST
It would seem to me that if the answer is YES, then why bother
to present any evidence to begin with. Just let each side
tell their stories and then let the jury decide who wins
based on whatever they want.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interesting verdict in UK court
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:02 PM EST

Well, that depends. Suppose a case involved an accident at an intersection, and one of the jurors lives in that area and drives through that intersection regularly so he has first-hand knowledge of it's layout. His first-hand knowledge contradicts what the prosecution is claiming on a basic point (eg. the prosecution is claiming there's a left-turn arrow at that intersection when there isn't one and it's a "left turn yield on green" intersection), and the defense hasn't brought that contradiction up. Is the jury required to ignore the contradiction, or are they allowed (or obliged) to ask for visual confirmation of the layout of the intersection and for the prosecution to explain any discrepancies between the actual layout and the prosecution's claims?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interesting verdict in UK court
Authored by: ais523 on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:36 PM EST
For people who haven't been following the case and don't want to follow the
link: the judge decided, based on the jury questions, that the jury didn't
understand what their role in the case was, and declared a mistrial. (That may
just have been because the jury said that they couldn't even agree on a 10:2
majority verdict, though.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

10 questions (and answers) jury asked in Vicky Pryce trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:47 PM EST
Vicky Pryce jury can reach majority verdict, says judge | Law | guardian.co.uk

A fuller version of all the questions that the, now discharged, jury needed guidance as to matters of law. Although some seem trivial and obvious it does show good faith and fullness/frankness of discussions in their desire to be fair in arriving at a judgement!

*It must be remembered that this is a case (initially about speeding by the politician, now ex-husband - now accepting guilt - caught by speed cameras) which requires judgements about states of mind and changes in a married relationship over time have led to a case of national interest.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Misunderstandings
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:47 PM EST

Based on the questions asked by the jury, I get the impression that the jury was totally confused. Exactly why they where confused I don't know. Maybe the Crown Attorney didn't explains things clearly. Maybe the Defense Attorney managed to obscure the issues.

But they are confused, so the judge took the only available action.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Innocence until proven guilty
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 11:39 AM EST

There have been some who have voiced opinions about guilt without the accused being given a chance to even have a trial, let alone voice their defense - the Aaron Swartz situation comes immediately to mind with so many comments along the lines:

    The prosecution says he did, so he must be guilty!
An example of "innocent until proven guilty" in the U.K. system is inherent in the Judges response to one of the questions:
    J: Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
    Mr Justice Sweeney: It’s for the prosecution to prove the case… There’s no burden on the defence to prove anything.
In short:
    If the prosecution fails to prove their case, the defense is required to do nothing!
or to put another way:
    If you're not convinced the prosecution has proven their case, then the default verdict is innocence!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interesting verdict in UK court
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 11:59 AM EST
Yes, he can. I was the foreman of a jury in a child molestation case where one
juror was convinced that the defendant was framed, though the defense had put
forward no such claim, and no evidence was produced for that. He could not be
swayed, and we eventually told the judge we were hopelessly deadlocked.

---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The verdict was a mistrial.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 03:56 PM EST
The verdict was a mistrial because of a hung jury. The Judge was commenting on
the seeming incomprehensibility of the juries questions.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )