Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed - ALL found NOT GUILTY

[Acker79]

Perhaps my interpretation of guilty is wrong as a vote of 10-2 for guilty ensure a guilty verdict any other vote surely is not not guilty as guilt has to be proven not innocence.

They had to have at least 10 people say "guilty" or ten people say "not guilty". If they don't reach that majority either way, then they have failed to come to a decision.

For instance, today, at least ten people found Lewis Dunk 'not guilty' of voyeurism.

They did not reach a majority in either direction on the other seven charges, so there are no decisions on the other seven charges.


They are still presumed innocent, until proven otherwise, but the question wasn't about their guilt/innocence but about whether the majority requirement for a decision worked for both not guilty and guilty, or just guilty. The jury has to reach a decision one way or another by a majority agreement. They failed to do so on 7 of the 8 counts.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Not having a detailed knowledge or interest in the case, no I didn't know the precise charge/s he still faces.

I love the taking life too seriously "the more serious one" without saying what the charge is. These trial threads really have brought out some funny behaviour.

The reasons being are laid out in Bozza post #1.
Take the time to read it, if for no other reason protect yourself from being taken to court yourself.

 

[BensGrandad]

They had to have at least 10 people say "guilty" or ten people say "not guilty". If they don't reach that majority either way, then they have failed to come to a decision.

For instance, today, at least ten people found Lewis Dunk 'not guilty' of voyeurism.

They did not reach a majority in either direction on the other seven charges, so there are no decisions on the other seven charges.


They are still presumed innocent, until proven otherwise, but the question wasn't about their guilt/innocence but about whether the majority requirement for a decision worked for both not guilty and guilty, or just guilty. The jury has to reach a decision one way or another by a majority agreement. They failed to do so on 7 of the 8 counts.

I accept that but isnt it the essence of British Justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty and as such if 10 just men didnt agree that the person is guilty then surely they are innocent. Not this case but any case there should be no decision of a retrial as the jury couldnt agree, as they have agreed that they cannot find the person guilty,

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I accept that but isnt it the essence of British Justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty and as such if 10 just men didnt agree that the person is guilty then surely they are innocent. Not this case but any case there should be no decision of a retrial as the jury couldnt agree, as they have agreed that they cannot find the person guilty,

You are right but it's innocent until proven guilty under the legal process. At present the legal process is still ongoing, and may or may not include a retrial.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

People really do need to be more attentive to the limitations that have been set for discussing this case on NSC.

Speculative statements to the effect that "if the jury didn't agree that they were guilty, then surely they are innocent" is precisely the sort of comment that oversteps the mark.

 

[Bozza]

People really do need to be more attentive to the limitations that have been set for discussing this case on NSC.

Speculative statements to the effect that "if the jury didn't agree that they were guilty, then surely they are innocent" is precisely the sort of comment that oversteps the mark.

Is it?

My read on it is that whilst it does apply to this case, it's very much a discussion on the application of law in this country: if a jury is unable to find you guilty with the required majority, are you then innocent?

It illustrates how difficult this whole area is though to us laymen and does make me wonder if, for the sake of protecting people from themselves, we just end these discussions now. I hate having to do that, but it does feel like a minefield and sooner or later someone is going to stand on one.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is it?

My read on it is that whilst it does apply to this case, it's very much a discussion on the application of law in this country: if a jury is unable to find you guilty with the required majority, are you then innocent?

It illustrates how difficult this whole area is though to us laymen and does make me wonder if, for the sake of protecting people from themselves, we just end these discussions now. I hate having to do that, but it does feel like a minefield and sooner or later someone is going to stand on one.

I agree that there is a distinction to be made between asking questions / making statements about the law on the one hand and making statements about this particular case and the defendants on the other.

I took the statement that I quoted as being about these particular defendants. That's why I queried its acceptability.

- - - Updated - - -

I do, though, have a question about the law.

Is it the case that a jury at a retrial is told that it is a retrial?

 

[Hillian1]

I agree that there is a distinction to be made between asking questions / making statements about the law on the one hand and making statements about this particular case and the defendants on the other.

I took the statement that I quoted as being about these particular defendants. That's why I queried its acceptability.

- - - Updated - - -

I do, though, have a question about the law.

Is it the case that a jury at a retrial is told that it is a retrial?

No, I was on one and it was only after the trial was finished we found out.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Is it?

My read on it is that whilst it does apply to this case, it's very much a discussion on the application of law in this country: if a jury is unable to find you guilty with the required majority, are you then innocent?

It illustrates how difficult this whole area is though to us laymen and does make me wonder if, for the sake of protecting people from themselves, we just end these discussions now. I hate having to do that, but it does feel like a minefield and sooner or later someone is going to stand on one.

I think you would need a seperate thread for theoretical debate about the law and how it applies in general - otherwise you are getting very close to using this case as a specific example by default, even if it is acccidental. Personally I would wind this up before it gets difficult (which it will - this is NSC after all).

 

[Acker79]

I accept that but isnt it the essence of British Justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty and as such if 10 just men didnt agree that the person is guilty then surely they are innocent. Not this case but any case there should be no decision of a retrial as the jury couldnt agree, as they have agreed that they cannot find the person guilty,

Would you rather, after being accused of a crime, be found 'not guilty' or have the jury unable to reach a consensus on whether you're guilty or not?

I don't think 'innocent until proven guilty' comes into it with regard to the jury. As far as I understand it, a jury is supposed to approach every case without prejudice, open to the possibility of all outcomes. To go in with the assumption of innocence goes against that, no?

A jury are asked "you've heard the testimony, you've seen the evidence, how do you find the defendant: guilty or not guilty?". If the jury don't reach a consensus they are, in effect, refusing to answer a question that only they are charged with answering it (under normal circumstances of jury trials).

As far as everyone else is concerned they are still innocent until proven guilty, but the jury are not 'everyone else'.

 

[Bodian]

I accept that but isnt it the essence of British Justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty and as such if 10 just men didnt agree that the person is guilty then surely they are innocent. Not this case but any case there should be no decision of a retrial as the jury couldnt agree, as they have agreed that they cannot find the person guilty,

A jury doesn't have to be split 'guilty', 'not guilty'. I was on a jury for a three week case, half of which was taken up by one (relatively) minor charge of which the bloke was obviously guilty - and we had pretty much agreed this straight away. The more serious charges took the rest of the time. 6 of us reckoned he was guilty, 1 not guilty, and the remainder felt he was 'probably guilty, but they haven't proved it beyond reasonable doubt'. Basically, they spent so much time prosecuting the minor charge, that they left stuff out of the major charge.

When retried, it took three whole weeks (the same time) just for the major charge. He got 11 years.

So the fact that someone is not found guilty because jurors couldn't agree on a verdict does not automatically mean he/she is 'not guilty' and should be spared a retrial.

- - - Updated - - -

I accept that but isnt it the essence of British Justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty and as such if 10 just men didnt agree that the person is guilty then surely they are innocent. Not this case but any case there should be no decision of a retrial as the jury couldnt agree, as they have agreed that they cannot find the person guilty,

A jury doesn't have to be split 'guilty', 'not guilty'. I was on a jury for a three week case, half of which was taken up by one (relatively) minor charge of which the bloke was obviously guilty - and we had pretty much agreed this straight away. The more serious charges took the rest of the time. 6 of us reckoned he was guilty, 1 not guilty, and the remainder felt he was 'probably guilty, but they haven't proved it beyond reasonable doubt'. Basically, they spent so much time prosecuting the minor charge, that they left stuff out of the major charge.

When retried, it took three whole weeks (the same time) just for the major charge. He got 11 years.

So the fact that someone is not found guilty because jurors couldn't agree on a verdict does not automatically mean he/she is 'not guilty' and should be spared a retrial.

 

[e77]

No, I was on one and it was only after the trial was finished we found out.

So presumably they have to find a jury not aware of the first trial?

 

[Triggaaar]

This will (presumably) cost whoever loses it a fortune

Is there anything to suggest the victim is paying her own fees?

What's that got do do with anything? She isn't suing them. The CPS brought the case against them, not her.

Just trying to get an understanding of what blue'n'white is talking about. How will winning or losing affect what this costs each side? How can this cost the prosecution a fortune?

 

[Triggaaar]

Perhaps my interpretation of guilty is wrong as a vote of 10-2 for guilty ensure a guilty verdict any other vote surely is not not guilty as guilt has to be proven not innocence.

If a jury finds someone guilty of a crime, that's one outcome. Another would be to find someone not guilty. And finally, a jury may not be able to reach a verdict, in which case there might be a re-trial, and the defendant remains innocent until proven guilty. So all defendants are currently innocent, until proven otherwise.

 

[The Large One]

Brighton footballers set to be retried in April.

In short, it looks like it's going ahead.

 

[clippedgull]

Brighton footballers set to be retried in April.

In short, it looks like it's going ahead.

Good. Makes sense to get a resolution one way or the other.

 

[nwgull]

Can new witnesses be called in a retrial?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Can new witnesses be called in a retrial?

I think they could, theoretically speaking (after all, if you had somebody up for murder, and months down the line, just before the retrial, somebody came forward who would be a cast-iron alibi for the defendant, it would be extremely questionable not to admit their evidence) but the validity and admissibility of their evidence would almost certainly be argued by the other side and possibly the judge.

 

[Ernest]

Very difficult to find a new jury who won't know it is a retrial as the case has been in all the national newspapers, websites as well as BBC and SKY channels

- - - Updated - - -

Very difficult to find a new jury who won't know it is a retrial as the case has been in all the national newspapers, websites as well as BBC and SKY channels

 

[Hillian1]

Very difficult to find a new jury who won't know it is a retrial as the case has been in all the national newspapers, websites as well as BBC and SKY channels

- - - Updated - - -

Very difficult to find a new jury who won't know it is a retrial as the case has been in all the national newspapers, websites as well as BBC and SKY channels

They managed to find a jury for Ian Huntley and Peter Sutcliffe, I'm pretty sure they'll find one for 4 footballers no-one's ever heard of.