Britain’s top lawyer decided on Thursday that no action would be taken against a Muslim woman accused of listening to an MP3 music player under her hijab while on jury duty.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was thrown off the jury considering a murder trial when one of her fellow jurors reported seeing headphone wires coming out of her headscarf.
The Crown Prosecution Service said there had been contempt cases where people had taken pictures using mobile phones in court, but it was believed to be the first of its kind involving a juror suspected of listening to music.
What is there to say? [shaking head]
Has anyone here ever done jury duty?
One of my friends got nabbed, for a murder trial no less. These trials last for months on end!
It’s pure hell, especially during deliberation that can last days. During that time, no contact whatsoever with the outside world.
Mark, I hope if you ever get into trouble that the folks on your jury are a little more concerned. And few trials every take more than a week. The average is 3-4 days and that number includes those that do take weeks.
I think this woman should be congratulated for her novel use of technology. Right after she’s stoned for listening to that devil western music, however.
I’m forgetting the US has jurors for all kinds of reasons…
Here in Canada, jurors are only for murder trials. 3-4 days is usually not even enough to view all the evidence and listen to all the witnesses.
I agree my friend’s two month odyssey was rather long, still, you never know what you get into with murder trials.
I would be interesting to have someone post his personal experience jury duty they did.
Who is “Britain’s Top Lawyer”?
Mark….. I sat on a jury not too long ago, in a federal criminal trial brought by the ATF (“Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” for you Canadians). After listening to the entire case, I turned out to be one of the alternates, so I was dismissed. The next morning I was called back in to replace a sick juror, so we began fresh deliberations. It’s an interesting “group think” dynamic that goes on in the jury room, and not one I’m entirely comfortable with, even though I fully agreed with our majority view that the ATF agents failed to prove their case. In the process of coming together in a sincere attempt to reach a unanimous verdict, I can imagine the process coming off the rails in some cases, resulting in some of the odd verdicts we sometimes read about. We spent a total of three days, and deliberations ended in deadlock, 10-2 in favor of acquittal.
The extra treat for me was getting to see an old friend of mine as the defense attorney. I only know one guy in the city who handles criminal cases, and I was pretty stunned when I saw him sitting at the defense table. I was equally surprised when the ATF lawyers didn’t exclude me with their juror challenges, even after I fully disclosed my acquaintance with their opponent. So I got into a frame of mind where I was well prepared to vote against my friend’s client if the facts so justified, but the facts were simply too weak to support a conviction. It was really a poorly executed sting operation. The evidence collection was so sparse that I couldn’t help but wonder if they were withholding something — not necessarily true exculpatory evidence, but something a little more subtle.
I have to say I’m really glad I went through the process at least once in my life, but I certainly wouldn’t want to sit through a long murder trial like your friend. That would take a lot of civic commitment.
A general comment about the American legal system. All too often, justice in America relies on the ability of your lawyer to manipulate the jury (and judges). As is often the case, the more money and social standing (which unfortunately can still be related to race) you have, the better lawyer you can afford. A better lawyer can manipulate the jury and find loopholes to eliminate evidence. Key to much of this is the jury system itself.
A typical jury is “largely” made up of people that were either not intelligent enough to get out of jury duty or have nothing more useful to do in their life. These type of people are often biased and are easily swayed (manipulated) with emotional speeches delivered by a skillful lawyer. The system of a “Jury of your peers” was a noble concept but is fatally flawed and naive. The “system” has been corrupted by these type of people. It is broken and needs to be torn down and completely re-thought out and rebuilt.
#5 – uh, click the link.
It’s my duty to inform you:
Islam = Religion of iPeace
It is my duty to inform you. Lauren the Bigot = misanthropy.
I always get excused from jury duty, though I would like to do it. One of my friends, a former law prof of mine, in fact, did make it on to grand jury. She ended up being ostracized by other jurors and writing her own minority report.
Yes. You would do well under Shari’a. As an enforcer. Just the proper mindset for it. You, for one, welcome our new thought-controlling overlords.
#5…since the law reform of 2005 in the UK….the top lawyer is called **The Lord Chief Justice**…..prior to the reform, the top person in the law system was **The Lord Chancellor**.
Under the reform, the Lord Chief Justice is now the top lawyer. Lord Chancellor is administrative. The reform was more complicated than I’ve written, but this should answer the question.
If it was me on trial, I would hope the jury was paying attention. That one juror wasn’t makes a travesty of an already flawed system. That she was removed from the jury is at least a good sign.
#12 Thank you. From U.S. readership, it seemed like a judgment call. Now I understand the title.
#5 Also, thank you. I should have known that “Britain’s Top Lawyer” was a/k/a Baroness Patricia…England’s answer to Judge Judy 🙂
That should have read — #8 Also, thank you….
I really am an idiot; yet I’m confident that I’m still smarter than our President.
Well, as more often than not, we have someone from another culture who enters this one and picks up on an aspect that suits her self-indugence – a personal music player – and uses it in the very course of thumbing her nose at another aspect – the Western justice system – that doesn’t interest her. To show some gratitude to the society that gives her refuge by honoring her civic duty is apparently too much to ask of her. Crikey™!
I’ve been turned down twice for jusy duty. Once when I was still a student due to my major and once since I graduated. Once by the prosecution and once by the defense. Both sides tend to not want anyone to familier with the law on the jury…..even if the law is of another country.
#16 – Well said.
If I ever commit a crime I do not want a jury of peers deciding my fate.
Maybe a jury of law students or retired judges or lawyer’s would be OK.
Frankly, you cannot leave someones fate to a bunch of disinterested common idiots.
#19, John,
I echo that comment.
If I were ever to be tried, I wouldn’t mind if someone already was aware of the case. In fact I would approve. That signals to me that they stay abreast of the news. That is a good indication of some intelligence. On the other hand, if they knew nothing, then that shows me they lack an inquisitive mind and have no idea or gives a poop what is happening around them.
Mind you, I am also leery about the information released to the media by the police and prosecutors.
#20. You assume that anything that you are tried for will make the news. I couldnt tell you the name of one defendant in my city. Why? the news doesnt cover crimes like burglary unless someone is killed. And with our congested courts, so much time elapses that the public ‘forgets’.