---

@evoman3957 wrote:

Just a short tale, whether relevant or not to this particular case, to demonstrate how juries are just people and some are useless judges of character and can't accept facts; even when they are in their faces............just like in life !!

Some years back, I was on Court duty; escorting a prisoner from the Cells in the Old Bailey, up to the Dock and sitting next to him through the trial. The trial was some weeks long and involved some serious violent and non violent offences. When it was time for the Jury to deliberate their verdict, they could not reach a unanimous decision and were sent back 3 times, by the Judge, to try to resolve the issue. I, along with others in the know, becames aware that the trouble was because of 2 Jurors, who were digging their heels in and were not in agreement with the rest. After three days of deliberation and still no agreement, the Judge told the Jury He would accept a 10 to 2 majority verdict. The Jury duly returned with a verdict of Guilty and at that stage the defendants previous convictions were read out. It took 20 minutes to read out his previous convictions, for all sorts of offences; some exremely serious and for exactly the same thing as He was on trial for in this instance. From My position, next to the prisoner, I could see clearly who the two Jurors were; who had caused so many problems, by refusing to believe he was Guilty. It was evident, from the glares given to them by the other Jurors.

---

A verdict is to be based upon the evidence presented; the 2 jurors who refused to fall in line should hold their heads up high if they believe that the evidence presented in that case was not compelling enough to secure a conviction, no matter whether the accused actually committed the crime or not, and no matter what their previous record holds!

Jurors are not there to believe if someone is guilty or not, they do not refuse to believe someone is guilty, they decide if evidence of guilt has been presented, beyond reasonable doubt!!!