I did jury service about ten years ago and the court was very, very clear that this was something you absolutely must not do under any circumstances. A case must always be heard on the basis of evidence given in the courtroom, not on random stuff that Google turns up.
It’s absolutely correct to prosecute in cases where this happens.
This sort of thing needs to be treated very seriously otherwise people lose faith in the justice system.
Relevant portion
>According to the charges, both brought under the Juries Act 1974, Leon is accused of “conducting online research into the legal meaning of the word ‘intention’, contrary to his legal responsibilities as a juror”.
Sounds crazy, but can imagine it’s missing context.
There must be more to it than just the word intention
Maybe he had googled uses, like ‘is carrying an axe intention’ or ‘is a lumberjack carrying a ace intention’ or ‘when does intention become action’
Case in the US ive been following where a jury conducted their own research during deliberations. Over 20yrs after his conviction the case was overturned and hes currently out on bail. They juror in that case isnt being prosecuted, but shows how a small thing you do can have major consequences to someones life
*According to the charges, both brought under the Juries Act 1974, Leon is accused of “conducting online research into the legal meaning of the word ‘intention’, contrary to his legal responsibilities as a juror”.*
****
Seems harsh.
Our legal system is so defunct, nowhere else in society do we try and determine whether something has occurred by taking 12 people with 0 experience on a subject matter and trying to convince them.
I understand where the concept was born, but courts become such a circus where the evidence goes out the window and it’s just a game of trying to influence juries with almost irrelevant points.
I now work across fraud, money laundering, crypto and computer network investigations and it’s stupid the amount of time that everything needs to be geared towards making 12 people understand the core concepts and how they interlink to see what actually happens
We don’t do the same within coroner courts and looking at doctors practicing, or where there’s flight crash investigations, or tribunals when it comes to complex tax investigations
But as soon as we throw in the “criminal” element, everything is up for debate as a show for 12 inexperienced people.
It’s like the George Carlin quote. Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
Just imagine trying to make an average person enough of an expert in your field where they can determine accurately what they think happend
He is accused of “conducting online research into the legal meaning of the word ‘intention’, contrary to his legal responsibilities as a juror”.
If the juror doesn’t understand the legal definition, how the heck are the jurors expected to really consider the trial fairly?.
Wouldn’t you want the jury to understand the definitions of any words using the trial of you?
If it was so cut and dry, there’d be no trial….
Now, had he been investigating the person, their history, the victims, the reports of the alleged crime, that would be different.
8 comments
I did jury service about ten years ago and the court was very, very clear that this was something you absolutely must not do under any circumstances. A case must always be heard on the basis of evidence given in the courtroom, not on random stuff that Google turns up.
It’s absolutely correct to prosecute in cases where this happens.
This sort of thing needs to be treated very seriously otherwise people lose faith in the justice system.
Relevant portion
>According to the charges, both brought under the Juries Act 1974, Leon is accused of “conducting online research into the legal meaning of the word ‘intention’, contrary to his legal responsibilities as a juror”.
Sounds crazy, but can imagine it’s missing context.
There must be more to it than just the word intention
Maybe he had googled uses, like ‘is carrying an axe intention’ or ‘is a lumberjack carrying a ace intention’ or ‘when does intention become action’
Case in the US ive been following where a jury conducted their own research during deliberations. Over 20yrs after his conviction the case was overturned and hes currently out on bail. They juror in that case isnt being prosecuted, but shows how a small thing you do can have major consequences to someones life
*According to the charges, both brought under the Juries Act 1974, Leon is accused of “conducting online research into the legal meaning of the word ‘intention’, contrary to his legal responsibilities as a juror”.*
****
Seems harsh.
Our legal system is so defunct, nowhere else in society do we try and determine whether something has occurred by taking 12 people with 0 experience on a subject matter and trying to convince them.
I understand where the concept was born, but courts become such a circus where the evidence goes out the window and it’s just a game of trying to influence juries with almost irrelevant points.
I now work across fraud, money laundering, crypto and computer network investigations and it’s stupid the amount of time that everything needs to be geared towards making 12 people understand the core concepts and how they interlink to see what actually happens
We don’t do the same within coroner courts and looking at doctors practicing, or where there’s flight crash investigations, or tribunals when it comes to complex tax investigations
But as soon as we throw in the “criminal” element, everything is up for debate as a show for 12 inexperienced people.
It’s like the George Carlin quote. Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
Just imagine trying to make an average person enough of an expert in your field where they can determine accurately what they think happend
He is accused of “conducting online research into the legal meaning of the word ‘intention’, contrary to his legal responsibilities as a juror”.
If the juror doesn’t understand the legal definition, how the heck are the jurors expected to really consider the trial fairly?.
Wouldn’t you want the jury to understand the definitions of any words using the trial of you?
If it was so cut and dry, there’d be no trial….
Now, had he been investigating the person, their history, the victims, the reports of the alleged crime, that would be different.