- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 19,824
- SLU Posts
- 18459
Over here, they ask people when they're called for jury service to notify the court office beforehand if they're actually disqualified for whatever reason (generally by reason of a criminal conviction, which, if the sentence awarded was sufficiently high, disqualifies people either for life or for 10 years, depending on the sentence, or because they'll have difficulty understanding the evidence or following the cars). If they want to apply to be excused for a good reason (ill-health, work commitments, a wedding or family holiday already booked) they can ask the court office for a postponement or, if that doesn't work, they can ask the judge.
Other than that, we generally simply ask people if they have any connection with the case. I've known judges to disqualify people from particular cases on other grounds -- once, rather unusually, the judge asked the panel if any of them had any family connection with the road haulage business, in a case that involved three men accused of robbing lorry drivers who had pulled off the road to sleep overnight. This was a particularly notorious case, though, about which feelings were running high, since the lorry driver whom they were accused of attempting to rob (and for which they were convicted) had killed one of their colleagues while defending himself from the gang.
Other than that, the theory is that, in the context of a jury room, where 12 strangers from all walks of life and backgrounds are deliberating over the evidence and arguments, people's conflicting prejudices are soon identified by other members of the jury in their attempts to reach a collective conclusion.
I've never served on a jury but people who have tell me that quite soon into the process the jury stops being 12 individuals and becomes a team working reasonably dispassionately to sift the evidence. Jurors can, though, and sometimes do, complain to the judge if they have concerns about one of their number being so prejudiced that the accused isn't receiving a fair trial.
Other than that, we generally simply ask people if they have any connection with the case. I've known judges to disqualify people from particular cases on other grounds -- once, rather unusually, the judge asked the panel if any of them had any family connection with the road haulage business, in a case that involved three men accused of robbing lorry drivers who had pulled off the road to sleep overnight. This was a particularly notorious case, though, about which feelings were running high, since the lorry driver whom they were accused of attempting to rob (and for which they were convicted) had killed one of their colleagues while defending himself from the gang.
Other than that, the theory is that, in the context of a jury room, where 12 strangers from all walks of life and backgrounds are deliberating over the evidence and arguments, people's conflicting prejudices are soon identified by other members of the jury in their attempts to reach a collective conclusion.
I've never served on a jury but people who have tell me that quite soon into the process the jury stops being 12 individuals and becomes a team working reasonably dispassionately to sift the evidence. Jurors can, though, and sometimes do, complain to the judge if they have concerns about one of their number being so prejudiced that the accused isn't receiving a fair trial.
