[lit-ideas] Re: Decisions, decisions [the jury system]
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:23:36 +0100 (BST)
--- Erin Holder <erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey, I like Twelve Angry Men. I did a play of that film in highschool.
> Well, the first highschool of many. I was the snobby, obnoxious juror. I
> think that was juror No. 4. I like to think they weren't typecasting.
Qn:-
Is the jury system so good? Might there not be a better system?
Had a v. long true story that it occurred to me to insert here about a jury
in Kerry. Not the future President, since he would hardly become President if
that story were true, this is Kerry in the remote South West Ireland - and
concerns a farmer charged in 2002 with having rear intercourse with a cow -
an offence no-one in that esteemed agricultural community had ever been
convicted of since the nineteenth century. Adapted and abridged for those
interested below.
After the first witness, a police officer, had given evidence, the jury
foreman rose and asked whether the jury had the power to now stop the case.
The judge, a Dubliner, asked why? 'Well, Your Honour, he says he was thirty
yards away - what can you tell at that distance? And this after no man in the
county has ever be convicted of such an offence for over a century'. The
judge asks the jury to retire and then asks counsel to argue the point. The
prosecution and defence agree that according to case-law the jury have the
power to stop a prosecution in favour of the defendant at any point after
they are sworn in, and need not even give any reason. The prosecution say
that nevertheless there are two further witnesses and devastating video
evidence and that the jury should be encouraged not to the stop the case.
When the jury return the Dubliner judge explains all this and explains the
rest of Ireland might look askance if, without hearing the full case, the
jury were to acquit at this early stage, notwithstanding that he took the
point that no Kerry man had been convicted of such an offence since the
century before last. The jury-foreman looks seriously at his fellow jurors
for their response and eventually says - 'Right y'be Your Honour'.
The prosecution then explain that their case is not simply based on the first
officer. The first officer, they explain, retreated from where he was
observing and got on his bike and cycled to the local police station. There
he told the incredulous police sergeant and another officer that though he
knew no one had been convicted of this offence in over a hundred years, he
nevertheless thought he had just seen a Kerry farmer having rear intercourse
with a cow in a field just five miles up the road. The sergeant, incensed,
tells the first officer to man the station while he and the second officer
take a video camera they have in the store-cupboard for big emergencies
and investigate. Off they cycle.
The prosecution explain that their case is not only had the farmer
'connection' with the animal but that he was still at it almost an hour after
the first officer's initial sighting and this will be proved by the video.
The two new investigators testify how they went to the field and saw the
defendant thrusting away at the rear of the cow, his braces off his shoulders
and his trousers around his ankles. They slowly approached from behind him,
the video rolling all the time. When only yards away they called out and the
farmer withdrew from the rear of the cow, turned to face them, but with his
genitalia briefly exposed to all view, despite his efforts to brace himself
up as quickly as possible. This version of events was completely corroborated
by the fifteen minute video.
The defendant does not give evidence and the defence speech simply relies on
the fact no Kerry-man has ever been convicted of this heinous offence in over
a hundred years and that the video evidence was surely open to some innocent
explanation.
After this, the judge somewhat sneeringly asks the jury whether they have any
more questions or whether they still want to stop the case? Having glanced at
the glum expressions on his fellow Kerry-men's faces, the jury-foreman says
slowly 'Your Honour..no.'
Almost no sooner than the jury have retired - as directed to consider their
verdict - than the judge receives from the clerk of court a note from the
jury. He calls in counsel, again in the absence of the jury, to argue the
point. 'The jury want to have the video to examine in the jury room'. The
defence object, saying that the case for both sides has closed and once that
is done the jury can see no further evidence. The prosecution argue that the
video has been seen and exhibited already and therefore is not further
evidence - just as the jury can take any exhibits with them into the jury
room for examination so they should be able to re-watch the video as part of
their deliberations. The judge agrees with the prosecution and orders that a
video, and the relevant equipment to watch it, be provided to the jurors in
the jury room.
Just at the end of the day the judge gets another note from the jury. This
time he informs counsel that the jury want to see the cow. The prosecution
argue that this should be possible, since the jury could have requested this
during the trial and the court would have to oblige as it is in fact a jury's
right to inspect and assess any of the physical items in a case. The defence
argue that while this may be so before the close of evidence, once the
evidence is closed that is it, and since the cow was not produced or
exhibited in court it is now too late for there to be any inspection.
This time the judge rules for the defence and calls the jury in to explain
that they will not be allowed, for legal reasons, to see the cow. He then
asks whether nevertheless the jury might be able to reach a verdict before
the end of day. The jury-foreman, having glanced at his fellow-jurors, shakes
his head. 'I don't think so, Your Honour. We need more time, especially now
that we can't see the cow for ourselves'. 'Very well, then I will have the
court ushers arrange accomodation at a local hotel for each of you tonight.
But remember - outside of the jury room you must not talk about this case
with any person, including other members of the jury'.
Next morning the jury retire to once more consider their verdict. At the very
end of the day the tired judge calls the jury in and asks whether they have
yet reached a verdict. 'Your Honour, not yet.' 'If you cannot reach a
verdict' the judge explains, 'it is my duty to discharge you and get a fresh
jury.' The jury-foreman glances at his fellow jurors. 'Your Honour, I am sure
we can reach a verdict'. - 'When?' 'By the end of the day, Your Honour'. 'You
have fifteen minutes'.
Fifteen minutes later the jury troop back into court.
The judge asks the foreman have they reached a verdict. The foreman is
silent. The judge says - Look, having heard the three witnesses, seen the
video in court, and had the video to examine in the jury-room, has the jury
reached a verdict or not? '.....Yes, Your Honour'. And would this be a
unanimous verdict? '....Yes, Your Honour'. Would the jury-foreman then
announce the verdict? 'Yes, Your Honour.' Will the foreman announce the
verdict NOW? 'The jury's verdict is......'
WHAT? 'The verdict is......' If you cannot announce a verdict I will have to
discharge you FORTHWITH. 'We can Your Honour announce it
....the verdict is not guilty.' That, FOREMAN, took you a LONG TIME!
'Well, we were just all hesitating over one thing - can Your Honour make him
sell us that cow?'
Donal
Bongo drums and poor jokes a speciality
Still making a serious point
London
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Decisions, decisions [the jury system]
