Sylvia Else wrote:
----------------------------------
>
> >> ---------------------------
> >>> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
> >>>
> >>> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
> >>> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
> >>>
> >>> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
> >>> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on with
> >>> their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
> >>
> >> ** You bet.
> >> The case has been sensationalised in the media for years and
> >> jurors are gonna be affected by that.
> >> Whole thing relies on the word of a drunk woman, long after the
> >> events.
> >>
> >> A hung jury is a near certainty.
> >>
> > Will there be a re-trial if there is a hung jury?
> >
> After the first failure to get a verdict, almost certainly.
>

** HUH ?????

........ Phil

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:12:12 +1100, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:

> On 26/10/2022 9:59 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26-Oct-22 9:43 am, Max wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2022 10:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
>>>> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>>>>
>>>> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
>>>> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on with
>>>> their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>>>>
>>>> I was on a jury decades ago with a single dissenter, who threw in the
>>>> towel after just an hour or so. It was a causing death by dangerous
>>>> driving charge, and the evidence was pretty compelling. The
>>>> dissenter's concern seemed to be that any of us might have found
>>>> ourselves in the same position, rather than that the accused wasn't
>>>> guilty.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The dissenter's attitude is absurd.
>>>
>>> How could "anyone" be in the situation where they would drive
>>> dangerously and kill someone?
>>>
>>> Surely there is a fault element to the offence and only certain people
>>> would commit the offence.
>> I am still bound by jury confidentiality, and it's arguable that I've
>> already said too much.
>> Still, the particular driving error involved moving out of the correct
>> lane and colliding with a stationary vehicle. I think the concern may
>> have been that the particular driving error was one easily made in a
>> moment of inattention and would not usually result in death or injury
>> except in an unusual situation such as actually occurred. It was not a
>> case involving speeding, reckless driving or intoxication.
>> It is within the power of a jury to decide that a law is unfair or
>> unreasonable, and that an acquittal should occur regardless of the
>> facts.

> I've never heard of that before.

No surprises there.

> Is it common law, or is it in legislation?

Neither, it is what some jurys have done, with nothing able to be done
about them doing it.

In one case someone shot an invader in the back as he was
running away and the jury found the shooter not guilty.

> Seems like the victims of a crime would be quite unhappy if the jury did
> that.

Irrelevant.

>> It would be stretching a point in this particular case, in my
>> view, but I suppose the dissenter could have seen things differently.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:18:52 +1100, Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
> ----------------------------------
>>
>> >> ---------------------------
>> >>> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>> >>>
>> >>> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
>> >>> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>> >>>
>> >>> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
>> >>> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on with
>> >>> their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>> >>
>> >> ** You bet.
>> >> The case has been sensationalised in the media for years and
>> >> jurors are gonna be affected by that.
>> >> Whole thing relies on the word of a drunk woman, long after the
>> >> events.
>> >>
>> >> A hung jury is a near certainty.
>> >>
>> > Will there be a re-trial if there is a hung jury?
>> >
>> After the first failure to get a verdict, almost certainly.

> HUH ?????

That's a fact. Hardly any hung jurys dont see another trial.

On 26/10/2022 8:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:12:12 +1100, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/2022 9:59 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 26-Oct-22 9:43 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/2022 10:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
>>>>> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>>>>>
>>>>> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
>>>>> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on
>>>>> with their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was on a jury decades ago with a single dissenter, who threw in
>>>>> the towel after just an hour or so. It was a causing death by
>>>>> dangerous driving charge, and the evidence was pretty compelling.
>>>>> The dissenter's concern seemed to be that any of us might have
>>>>> found ourselves in the same position, rather than that the accused
>>>>> wasn't guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The dissenter's attitude is absurd.
>>>>
>>>> How could "anyone" be in the situation where they would drive
>>>> dangerously and kill someone?
>>>>
>>>> Surely there is a fault element to the offence and only certain
>>>> people would commit the offence.
>>>  I am still bound by jury confidentiality, and it's arguable that
>>> I've already said too much.
>>>  Still, the particular driving error involved moving out of the
>>> correct lane and colliding with a stationary vehicle. I think the
>>> concern may have been that the particular driving error was one
>>> easily made in a moment of inattention and would not usually result
>>> in death or injury except in an unusual situation such as actually
>>> occurred. It was not a case involving speeding, reckless driving or
>>> intoxication.
>>>  It is within the power of a jury to decide that a law is unfair or
>>> unreasonable, and that an acquittal should occur regardless of the
>>> facts.
>
>> I've never heard of that before.
>
> No surprises there.
>
>> Is it common law, or is it in  legislation?
>
> Neither, it is what some jurys have done, with nothing able to be done
> about them doing it.
>

How do you know it is was they have done if jurors are not allowed to
talk about their deliberations in public?

> In one case someone shot an invader in the back as he was
> running away and the jury found the shooter not guilty.
>
>> Seems like the victims of a crime would be quite unhappy if the jury
>> did that.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>> It would be stretching a point in this particular case, in my
>>> view, but I suppose the dissenter could have seen things differently.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:38:32 +1100, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:

> On 26/10/2022 8:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:12:12 +1100, Max <max@invalid.address> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/10/2022 9:59 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 26-Oct-22 9:43 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 25/10/2022 10:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
>>>>>> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
>>>>>> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on
>>>>>> with their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was on a jury decades ago with a single dissenter, who threw in
>>>>>> the towel after just an hour or so. It was a causing death by
>>>>>> dangerous driving charge, and the evidence was pretty compelling.
>>>>>> The dissenter's concern seemed to be that any of us might have
>>>>>> found ourselves in the same position, rather than that the accused
>>>>>> wasn't guilty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The dissenter's attitude is absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>> How could "anyone" be in the situation where they would drive
>>>>> dangerously and kill someone?
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely there is a fault element to the offence and only certain
>>>>> people would commit the offence.
>>>> I am still bound by jury confidentiality, and it's arguable that
>>>> I've already said too much.
>>>> Still, the particular driving error involved moving out of the
>>>> correct lane and colliding with a stationary vehicle. I think the
>>>> concern may have been that the particular driving error was one
>>>> easily made in a moment of inattention and would not usually result
>>>> in death or injury except in an unusual situation such as actually
>>>> occurred. It was not a case involving speeding, reckless driving or
>>>> intoxication.
>>>> It is within the power of a jury to decide that a law is unfair or
>>>> unreasonable, and that an acquittal should occur regardless of the
>>>> facts.
>>
>>> I've never heard of that before.
>> No surprises there.
>>
>>> Is it common law, or is it in legislation?
>> Neither, it is what some jurys have done, with nothing able to be done
>> about them doing it.

> How do you know it is was they have done if jurors are not allowed to
> talk about their deliberations in public?

They didn't need to say anything to the public, it was
obvious what they did given that even the shooter
never denied that he shot the invader in the back as
he was running away. That's why he was charged, stupid.

The jury basically gave the judicial system the finger.

>> In one case someone shot an invader in the back as he was
>> running away and the jury found the shooter not guilty.
>>
>>> Seems like the victims of a crime would be quite unhappy if the jury
>>> did that.
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>>> It would be stretching a point in this particular case, in my
>>>> view, but I suppose the dissenter could have seen things differently.

On 25-Oct-22 10:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>
> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>
> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on with
> their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>
> I was on a jury decades ago with a single dissenter, who threw in the
> towel after just an hour or so. It was a causing death by dangerous
> driving charge, and the evidence was pretty compelling. The dissenter's
> concern seemed to be that any of us might have found ourselves in the
> same position, rather than that the accused wasn't guilty.
>
> Nevertheless, it makes the point.
>
> Sylvia.

Turns out the trial has been aborted due to possible misconduct on the
part of a juror.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/judges-blunt-final-warning-after-bruce-lehrmann-jury-discharged/news-story/ad92c56ecaf95f172da7c28a9caf07c8?utm_campaign=EditorialSB&utm_content=SocialBakers&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=news.com.au

"The Judge said the content of the research paper included discussion
around the unhelpfulness of attempting to quantify the prevalence of
false complaints and a deeper analysis around false sexual assault
complaints."

I have misgivings about this. It appears not to have been research
around the question of whether the specific accused was guilty, but on
the wider issue of the reliability of witness evidence in rape trials.

I cannot see why a juror should not be permitted to educate themselves
on such issues. While jurors are meant to consider only the evidence
presented during a trial, the reality is that this is always going to be
considered in the context of the jurors wider knowledge, especially when
it comes to the credibility of witnesses.

Should a potential juror be excluded if they've already read such
material? More generally, do we demand that jurors be ignorant?

Sylvia.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 14:42:00 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

> On 25-Oct-22 10:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
>> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
>> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on with
>> their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>> I was on a jury decades ago with a single dissenter, who threw in the
>> towel after just an hour or so. It was a causing death by dangerous
>> driving charge, and the evidence was pretty compelling. The dissenter's
>> concern seemed to be that any of us might have found ourselves in the
>> same position, rather than that the accused wasn't guilty.
>> Nevertheless, it makes the point.

> Turns out the trial has been aborted due to possible misconduct on the
> part of a juror.
>
> https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/judges-blunt-final-warning-after-bruce-lehrmann-jury-discharged/news-story/ad92c56ecaf95f172da7c28a9caf07c8?utm_campaign=EditorialSB&utm_content=SocialBakers&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=news.com.au
>
> "The Judge said the content of the research paper included discussion
> around the unhelpfulness of attempting to quantify the prevalence of
> false complaints and a deeper analysis around false sexual assault
> complaints."
>
> I have misgivings about this. It appears not to have been research
> around the question of whether the specific accused was guilty, but on
> the wider issue of the reliability of witness evidence in rape trials.
>
> I cannot see why a juror should not be permitted to educate themselves
> on such issues. While jurors are meant to consider only the evidence
> presented during a trial, the reality is that this is always going to be
> considered in the context of the jurors wider knowledge, especially when
> it comes to the credibility of witnesses.

> Should a potential juror be excluded if they've already read such
> material?

Corse not and impossible to check if they have or not anyway.

> More generally, do we demand that jurors be ignorant?

Corse not and impossible to check if they are or not anyway.

Sylvia Else wrote:
---------------------------
>
> Turns out the trial has been aborted due to possible misconduct on the
> part of a juror.
>
> https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/judges-blunt-final-warning-after-bruce-lehrmann-jury-discharged/news-story/ad92c56ecaf95f172da7c28a9caf07c8?utm_campaign=EditorialSB&utm_content=SocialBakers&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=news.com.au
>
> "The Judge said the content of the research paper included discussion
> around the unhelpfulness of attempting to quantify the prevalence of
> false complaints and a deeper analysis around false sexual assault
> complaints."
>
> I have misgivings about this. It appears not to have been research
> around the question of whether the specific accused was guilty, but on
> the wider issue of the reliability of witness evidence in rape trials.

** Which must not arrive, sitting on the table, inside the jury room.

> I cannot see why a juror should not be permitted to educate themselves
> on such issues.

** They are warned to not study the relevant law or any other matter to inform themselves re the case in question.

> While jurors are meant to consider only the evidence
> presented during a trial, the reality is that this is always going to be
> considered in the context of the jurors wider knowledge, especially when
> it comes to the credibility of witnesses.

** Many would know that rape trials have a low success rate for the prosecution.

> Should a potential juror be excluded if they've already read such
> material?

** IMO no, but still must judge the accuser's credibilty independently from published statistics.

> More generally, do we demand that jurors be ignorant?

** Seems to be vastly preferred by courts.
Plus willing to do exactly as told by the Judge.

FYI: No accused should be ever be convicted on weak evidence or because jurors think they need to please the judge.
Either of the above is a travesty of justice.

......... Phil

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>
> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>
> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on with
> their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>
> I was on a jury decades ago with a single dissenter, who threw in the
> towel after just an hour or so. It was a causing death by dangerous
> driving charge, and the evidence was pretty compelling. The dissenter's
> concern seemed to be that any of us might have found ourselves in the
> same position, rather than that the accused wasn't guilty.
>
> Nevertheless, it makes the point.
>
> Sylvia.

I have been a juror at two trials for sex crimes against children. They
were deadlocked at first. They eventually got sick of arguing about it
and decided guilty on one charge but not guilty of the other charge.

On 27-Oct-22 7:10 pm, Ozix wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Judge tells them to continue to deliberate.
>>
>> We have no way of knowing which way the jury might be leaning, nor
>> whether there are multiple jurors in disagreement.
>>
>> What worries me is that the longer this goes on, the greater the
>> pressure on any hold-out to concede so that the jury can get on with
>> their lives. There is clear scope for injustice.
>>
>> I was on a jury decades ago with a single dissenter, who threw in the
>> towel after just an hour or so. It was a causing death by dangerous
>> driving charge, and the evidence was pretty compelling. The
>> dissenter's concern seemed to be that any of us might have found
>> ourselves in the same position, rather than that the accused wasn't
>> guilty.
>>
>> Nevertheless, it makes the point.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I have been a juror at two trials for sex crimes against children. They
> were deadlocked at first. They eventually got sick of arguing about it
> and decided guilty on one charge but not guilty of the other charge.

That can be a cunning way for a juror in the know to get an outright
acquittal. If there's no reasonable way to choose between the charges,
then the legal team will appeal on the grounds that it was a compromise
verdict, and the guilty verdict will be overturned.

Sylvia.