Nice people thread part 3- Nice as pie

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

May be some our resident legals could help out with 'beyond reasonable doubt' - I think this is very difficult for a lay person - say you are 90% sure the defendant is guilty but they have provided a possible (but unlikely) alternative in which they are not guilty - is that 'reasonable doubt'? How about if it is 95% or 98% likely?

Also it is hard not to form an opinion based on the behaviour and demeanour of the witnesses and accused whereas in reality some people may just 'look' honest and others 'guilty' regardless of their actual guilt or innocence but how not to be swayed by our inbuilt genetic predisposition to make character judgements?

they don't say reasonable doubt anymore, the judge will now say that a guilty verdict should be given if the jury are sure that the defendent is guilty.

supposed to make it easier...

chewmylegoff

a colleague i used to work with got called up for jury service. he tried this to get out of it:

"as a retired police officer with 30 years service, i know that everyone who appears in crown court is guilty"

didn't work!

silvercar

May be some our resident legals could help out with 'beyond reasonable doubt' - I think this is very difficult for a lay person - say you are 90% sure the defendant is guilty but they have provided a possible (but unlikely) alternative in which they are not guilty - is that 'reasonable doubt'? How about if it is 95% or 98% likely?

That was the problem MIL had. (Story changed sufficiently to avoid prison)

Case of theft, but charged lived 2 roads from crime so could (but v. v. unlikely) have been showed and touched recovered items that had his fingerprints all over them, if he had been shown the items by a neighbour! This explanation was put forward by the mouthy jurors who felt that unlikely coincidences should be ruled out before someone was found guilty.

chewmylegoff

silvercar wrote: »

That was the problem MIL had. (Story changed sufficiently to avoid prison)

Case of theft, but charged lived 2 roads from crime so could (but v. v. unlikely) have been showed and touched recovered items that had his fingerprints all over them, if he had been shown the items by a neighbour! This explanation was put forward by the mouthy jurors who felt that unlikely coincidences should be ruled out before someone was found guilty.

if the defendant had said "my fingerprints are on those things because i was around there having tea last week and touched them" then that's one thing, but to make up possible defences which the defendant has not relied on is not really what the jury is supposed to be doing!

silvercar

michaels wrote: »

Also it is hard not to form an opinion based on the behaviour and demeanour of the witnesses and accused whereas in reality some people may just 'look' honest and others 'guilty' regardless of their actual guilt or innocence but how not to be swayed by our inbuilt genetic predisposition to make character judgements?

I was in a magistrates court once for a damages case after a car crash. I was petrified, even though we were only sitting round a table. The judge had toy cars on the table to re-enact the scene and was really friendly, but I was so scared I'm sure I sounded guilty.

As it was, I won. I'm sure it was the fact that I was a mum on a school run journey as opposed to an 18 year old girl lost when driving out and about for no purpose that swung it.

I said I was held up on a roundabout and she came on to the roundabout and hit me. She said that she had right of way onto the roundabout and I pushed in from the next junction.
How could the judge really decide?

lostinrates

silvercar wrote: »

That's what MIL thought, but her fellow unpicked jurors could talk for England, she couldn't get a moment's peace..

I used to read when I could at court anyway. Some times you'd get a client who wanted to talk and you'd listen to what was relevant and then politely get out of the conversations about what his aunty said to his cousin and how unfair it all was, innit,and how annoying it was THEY had to wait, they had better things to do etc etc. some times I had a really interesting client, some times they were engaging. Juggling lots of files in the smae day is be
tter than getting stuck with one who could talk hind leg of a donkey, but stressful....every barrister needs you at the same time seemingly. The best days were with say two files, one am one pm and nice barristers who recognise that you are a human and whisk you off for coffee and a chat. I was really flattered when one day when I met someone who said she's heard loads about me and was exited to finally meet me..:rotfl::rotfl:. Some clerks must be REALLY rubbish, that's all I can say. (think how hard I found language still when i first joined: the bulk part of the job is just writing ...so...)

Freakiest day doing that* is when Counsel didn't turn up and the judge addressed me. I had never seen a clerk spoken to or speak back and I didn't know what to do.the Prosecution who had been explaining the situation for me looked seriously p'd off and I was probably as red as a beetroot. It was really interesting, and relatively easy work, and you really got to meet very different people so fascinating from that PoV. I'm not sure I'd get a big kick out of it now in the same way, but it was brilliant for me at the time and I wouldn't hesitate to do it again.
* thinking about it there was another freaky day where the client tried to attack me in Cells. He'd been pretty verbally abusive to the barrister already but ok with me. Something, I don't know what because he was by no means the worst client I'd had had made me take a precaution I never normally took before going t see him. It did nothing so amazing as save my life, but it probably did stop me getting a fairly nasty bruise. The staff down there were brilliant (I took them quality street the next day). The barrister HATED the client and was thrilled to find herself embarrassed and advised me to get someone else to lerk, and called the solicitor and advised them to get someone male. I was surprisingly ok the next day. That Counsel who took over was male might have helped I suppose.

JonnyBravo

michaels wrote: »

Look like I missed all the excitement last night.

The nice people thread descends into a bun fight and we're not around. Grrrrr.





The only time I was in court I was also the headline story in our local paper. Early 2000 I think. It was for speeding. Oh the infamy. I've still got the paper.

Got a £700 fine and points which took me over 12. Exceptional hardship was found and kept my license. Not been done since then and drive at a vastly different pace nowadays.
Phew.

PasturesNew

The training thing. I had a very confusing day and this woman shoved her card in my hand, I've no idea who she was or where for (this was in a noisy, public, cafe with coffee machines going off and people moving about a lot)... so I shoved it in my bag (I presume).

Anyway ... first email I shot off was to the wrong woman... so I must have had other cards shoved in my bag

So now I've found another random card in my bag and shot off my email to the woman that's from.... so now seeing if that was who I saw.

As I said, bizarre day it was.....

GDB2222

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if the defendant had said "my fingerprints are on those things because i was around there having tea last week and touched them" then that's one thing, but to make up possible defences which the defendant has not relied on is not really what the jury is supposed to be doing!

What training do the jury get? There ought at least to be a FAQs, and that ought to be in it. Along with: Don't go searching the www because you should only take into account evidence given in court. I suspect, but don't know, that the jury may only get told not to search the www, but not why.

Davesnave

PasturesNew wrote: »

I was in the dock once....

I was once up for a motoring offence which I was so mad about, I decided to contest it. Police decided to stitch me up possibly because the other party was a very weepy nurse in uniform. No one was hurt. Despite the fact that both my kids were howling too, no police lady comforted them at all, or even spoke.

At the time I wasn't that concerned, 'cos I knew the police guy who decided traffic prosecutions quite well. He lived in my road and enjoyed gardening. Two days later I heard he was on indefinite leave with a heart attack....:eek:

CPS screwed me too. Of course it wasn't intentional that they listed a witness for the defence as being for the prosecution. (He'd been late for an appt, but came forward later.) I was gobsmacked when I discovered that at least one other person thought it was the nurse's fault. Until then, I'd felt one step down from being a child molester.

Anyway, you can guess that I reached court with steam issuing from my ears. Stupidly, I'd decided to defend myself, which surprised everyone, including me, but I enjoyed cross questioning the nurse, so it was almost worth it. She was tearful again. I lost count of how many times counsel for the prosection objected, but I was 'new' and inexperienced wasn't I?

The best bit was that the main witness for the prosecution was a Mr Ovary. Personally. I considered that any bloke who'd hung on to that name would have questionable mental abilities. He claimed that my witness did things he could not possibly have seen, so maybe this assessment was correct.

At the end of the main proceedings, the counsel for the defence smiled warmly for the first time and said, "Between you & me, I think you may have done enough."

He was wrong!