Hung Jury (1 Viewer)

[Dustin_z]

What happens when there is a 'hung jury'?

Lets say two of the jurers on a case think the person is not guilty while the rest think the person is guilty, does this case automatically have a retrial?

Are there any website links that have information on the jury system in NSW? I have searched for an hour now but I cant find one relevant to NSW.

 

[Atticus.]

What happens when there is a 'hung jury'?

Lets say two of the jurers on a case think the person is not guilty while the rest think the person is guilty, does this case automatically have a retrial?

Are there any website links that have information on the jury system in NSW? I have searched for an hour now but I cant find one relevant to NSW.

after the jury is asked to reconsider


retrial my friend

 

[Dustin_z]

Yeah but what if the Judge agrees with the two jurers that think the person is not guilty?

Is a retrial an automatic, iron clad thing?

I mean what happens if in a retrial there is ANOTHER hung jury? The system couldn't allow for unlimited retrials, especially if the person really is not-guilty.

 

[Jonathan A]

What happens when there is a 'hung jury'?

Lets say two of the jurers on a case think the person is not guilty while the rest think the person is guilty, does this case automatically have a retrial?

Are there any website links that have information on the jury system in NSW? I have searched for an hour now but I cant find one relevant to NSW.

A hung jury as you pointed out means that the jury can reach a unanimous verdict.

Civil proveedings are different to criminal. Note under the Jury Act 1977 s57:

--------

57 Majority verdicts in civil proceedings

(1) Where the jury in civil proceedings have retired for more than 4 hours and they are unable to agree on their verdict:
(a) in the case of a jury consisting of 4 persons, the decision of 3 jurors, or
(b) in the case of a jury consisting of 12 persons or, pursuant to section 22 (b), 9, 10 or 11 persons, the decision of 8 jurors,
shall be taken as the verdict of all.

(2) A reference in this section to a verdict includes a reference to an answer to any specific question put to the jury by the court.
-------

Under s56, the court can discharge a jury if it finds they are unlikely to reach a verdict, so there is no real time limit and the expectation is they are going to reach a verdict.

Generally the process of a mistrial resulting from a jury-related problem is to have a re-trial.

 

[Jonathan A]

Yeah but what if the Judge agrees with the two jurers that think the person is not guilty?

Is a retrial an automatic, iron clad thing?

I mean what happens if in a retrial there is ANOTHER hung jury? The system couldn't allow for unlimited retrials, especially if the person really is not-guilty.

Where a jury is present, the judge does not give a verdict. You can elect to have a judge-only trial, the problem with that is one person's decision will affect your outcome. The system can allow for unlimited retrials.

 

[melsc]

Isn't it after 3 or something the person is acquitted...or am I confussing stuff ?
Isnt that why some states have majority verdicts to prevent hung juries and therefore no need for retrials

 

[Jonathan A]

Isn't it after 3 or something the person is acquitted...or am I confussing stuff ?
Isnt that why some states have majority verdicts to prevent hung juries and therefore no need for retrials

Not sure, I hope it isn't.

I have been in observations where there have been 3 mistrials because the facts of the case were sickening that jurors couldn't go on. The case still went on though.

The relevant court Acts, e.g. the District Court Act have certain provisions about how many jurors are required. The lowest number is 10 and this is at the discretion of the judge. And this makes way for illness and the like.

 

[Jonathan A]

I mentioned judge-only trials.

A disadvantage of a judge-only trial (take note for those drafting responses to jury advantage questions) are what are called "Frozen Defences".

A lawyer cannot lie in court about the innocence of their client (even though movies show they do).

A frozen defence is where a client has told their lawyer they are guilty but plead not guilty. The lawyer cannot suggest to the court that their client is innocent or they cannot run with a story to the contrary, e.g. that the accussed was not there at 8pm when they really were. What a lawyer is left to do is challenge the validity of the facts and reliability.

Juries don't know about this, but generally prosecutors and judges will generally know by the way the case is presented there is a frozen defence. hence imagine doing that in front of a judge who is deciding the verdict, s/he would suspect guilt.

 

[Dustin_z]

I'm not in favor of 'majority' verdicts. I mean what if only 7 of the 12 jurors say GUILTY? I mean the prosecution would be able to put on a crappy case, have 7 yobbo's on the jury and win the case.

We send innocent people to jail even with unaminous decisions, imagine how many more innocent people we would send to jail with majority decisions?

 

[Jonathan A]

I agree. Court decisions in criminal should be unanimous. But civil is a different story. Civil juries consider different issues.

 

[gbi]

This is no longer the case.
If you look up majority verdicts it says that for a majority verdict to work or be valid there has to be either:

a) 11:1, meaning that out of 12 jurors 11 must agree on guilt or innocence

OR

b) 10:1 meaning that out of 11 jurors 10 must agree on guilt or innocence

I HATE LEGAL STUDIES ATM!