The issue with the juror is not that she was a victim of domestic violence. It's that she did not disclose that she was. This makes it appear as if she lied to get on the jury.
If she had revealed it from the beginning and still been on the jury, then the verdict would not have been overturned.
Like I said ONE juror can hang a jury. The only fair option once you find out a juror has misrepresented themselves on a critical issue, is a retrial.
If she had lied about having a DUI it wouldn't have likely been an issue. It's only because it was on a central issue to the case that it occurred.
Respectfully, I did say I understood that it was a procedural issue in the US system that the juror in question had not disclosed her history. Therefore it prompted a look at whether this could have affected the verdict against Blagg.
But my question is, is if she had disclosed her history, would the defence have objected to her sitting on the jury? From the little I have seen on this process, I think the answer would have been yes they would? And that is the critical point. But would another pristine person had any trouble (like the other eleven) convicting him? Unlikely IMO. We shall see as no doubt this time, any woman who has had as much as a mild argument over the breakfast table with the husband will have been debarred!
I believe in the UK you are just asked if you have a personal relationship to the defendant which would obviously be a problem. Happy to be corrected on this, I've never been on a jury and never known anyone who has, not much major crime in my area. So pretty much you get a random mix of people all with their own baggage, prejudices, views and opinions and levels of ability to weigh the evidence and keep awake.
Are the jurors in a partner violence case ever asked if they have hit their own partner? Are they asked if they have a sister, mother, daughter, friend who has experienced partner violence? Would they be excluded? How would you ever find twelve people (plus alternates!), partner violence is so endemic in society. I think the figure is 35% of all women have experienced this so IMO it is probably well over 50/60 % in reality.
I, like many women have experienced controlling behaviour, and a degree of violence and threat of violence from a male partner. Even if I could see video of Blagg assaulting his wife and daughter on another occasion and police had been called to their house before etc, etc, without enough OTHER evidence that connects him to the specific crime of murder, I wouldn't convict him. It would certainly be a strong "predictor" of behaviour and so would carry a certain amount of weight, but no more than that.
Prior victims of a crime should not be excluded from sitting on juries, they have greater knowledge and experience of the issues and it is disrespectful of them to think that they are now incapable of dispassionate thought. Absolutely they should excuse themselves if they think they cannot do this.
And I think I would probably allow objections if a rape trial had less than 4 female members. And if there were an all-white jury and a black defendant, I wouldn't be happy with that or vice versa. But in general random selection of twelve people evens that out by itself. That's why juries were invented. All that random experience thrown together aids justice, doesn't hinder it. Just my opinion, that's all.
