The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 10th July - Trial Day 18

[Fluffykins]

I'm concerned now about the jury. Should be pretty obvious that a US guide to deliberating is off the mark, not to mention prohibited.

Yes, and I'm concerned that there is one person on the jury who really isn't very bright.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I don't know about law in Australia, but if it was here in NZ I doubt that much would be done about them looking up info on jury deliberations. The only case I know of where there was a successful appeal (actually and English case) was where jury used a ouija board! There has to be a real risk that the jury's deliberations were skewed by the material.

Gawd, I remember that, lol!

 

[Timmy]

Do we have a Jury Foreperson?

Hopefully not the guy with the notes on how to deliberate taken from the Internet!

 

[STELLA85]

I don't know about law in Australia, but if it was here in NZ I doubt that much would be done about them looking up info on jury deliberations. The only case I know of where there was a successful appeal (actually and English case) was where jury used a ouija board! There has to be a real risk that the jury's deliberations were skewed by the material.

OMG thats hillarious :floorlaugh:

 

[BrissyLass]

I don't know about law in Australia, but if it was here in NZ I doubt that much would be done about them looking up info on jury deliberations. The only case I know of where there was a successful appeal (actually and English case) was where jury used a ouija board! There has to be a real risk that the jury's deliberations were skewed by the material.

sure, looking up how to deliberate is hardly going to be seen as a major problem, the way I see it is that it goes on to point out that if juror(s) looked that up, just what else have they looked up on the internet in their spare time?

 

[Brightbird]

Yes, and I'm concerned that there is one person on the jury who really isn't very bright.

Yes, that's the essence of what I was thinking.

 

[Smegal]

I think we have an insulted angry Judge. :croc:

He made the rules very very very clear yesterday , when I was there.

WTF
The Jury asking for a copy of his directions ???
A member of the Jury has deliberately ignored the Judge and rules???
:snake: is lurking amongst them ?

It just beggars belief, doesn't it? How could you possibly think it was okay? What, you (meaning the juror) didn't think the judge knew what he was talking so thought you would google it instead?

 

[BrissyLass]

Given I'm not a verified WS expert I can't really give a comprehensive answer to that without getting into a bit of strife. Can I just clarify your question though, are you asking whether Judge Byrne may have erred in not declaring a mistrial instead of sending the jury back to deliberate?

boom boom, im fairly sure that is the question

okay, i'm out

 

[squizzey1]

Yes, and I'm concerned that there is one person on the jury who really isn't very bright.

often they just want to show how clever they are and how much they know , seen it before

 

[AAAA]

how many of you have pondered that he might , just might , hopefully not, God willing , be home for the weekend:gaah::tantrum::shame:

Oh god no! I suppose it could happen, but imagine the outcry! I reckon we'd be seeing him strutting around the Kenmore shops before too long...

 

[madamehdivision]

It just absolutely beggars belief

:facepalm:

 

[squizzey1]

Given I'm not a verified WS expert I can't really give a comprehensive answer to that without getting into a bit of strife. Can I just clarify your question though, are you asking whether Judge Byrne may have erred in not declaring a mistrial instead of sending the jury back to deliberate?

no not at all other wise you would have more mistrials than big G had affairs

 

[FigTree]

But at that point it was assumed or should have been assumed not to be a serious matter. I think. But then thats the point isnt it- he was making it into a serious matter straight away and being alarmist and the kids did know she was missing...

Yes, and his drama would have added to their stress and their uncertainty of what is happening.
Their events surrounding them are telling them one thing and the adults are telling them another.
They become confused - emotionally.
They are alone at school - One of the girls mentioned that she told only one friend about what was happening.

They could have been spent the day - or the time - with a family member until it was decided how serious the situation was.

I think GBC thought his day was going to run smoothly - report ABC Missing - fill out a report at the Police Station - go to work.

 

[BJsleuth]

often that just want to show how clever they are and how much they know , seen it before

I was thinking the same thing Squizzey. There's always one isn't there?

 

[Amee]

1.22pm: The jury requested further information from Supreme Court Justice John Byrne.

The jury re-entered the court room at 12.38pm.

Justice Byrne told the jury they would not receive a copy of his summing up at the request of the prosecution and defence counsels.

It retired again to deliberate shortly after.

The jury returned to the court at 1.10pm, after they had been deliberating for two hours.

Justice Byrne said he had three times warned the jury not to enquire of anything to do with the trial outside the court room.

He said a juror had apparently downloaded from the internet material on how a jury might approach its “great responsibility of deliberating on a verdict”.

He thanked the jury for bringing the matter to his attention.

“Now everyone appreciates a juror’s job is rarely easy and we all understand a juror are often anxious about performing their role,” he said.

“They want to do it well and responsibly and will look for assistance. But I repeat, that assistance must come from the court and only from the court, and not some external source.”

Justice Byrne told the jury they had a guide to deliberating in a form that was approved by the court available to them in the jury room.

“You scarcely need to know what some overseas commentator speaking about a very different system of jury trials, happens to think. So the document will be retained by my associate and not returned to the jury room.”

He reminded the jury not to enquire outside of the court room about anything that related to the trial.

“You must not use any aide, such as a textbook to conduct research, and except in this court room, you must not in any way seek or receive information about questions that arise in the trial, or about the accused, or about any witnesses or the deceased, for example by conducting research using the internet, or by communicating with someone by phone, email or Twitter, through any blog or website, including social networking websites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and You Tube,” he said.

The jury has returned to its deliberations.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...wipe-slate-clean/story-fnihsrf2-1226983491477

 

[Brightbird]

often that just want to show how clever they are and how much they know , seen it before

I feel kinda sorry for him/her. Probably thought they were being helpful but got a stern talking to from the Judge. I believe it was innocent and won't affect the outcome of anything, but it's not exactly confidence inspiring.

 

[STELLA85]

Oh god no! I suppose it could happen, but imagine the outcry! I reckon we'd be seeing him strutting around the Kenmore shops before too long...

I do hope not

 

[squizzey1]

I was thinking the same thing Squizzey. There's always one isn't there?

yep the know all smart A#%E who wants to be seen , look at me , look at me, look at me me me, look at me

 

[possumheart]

We all know our courts are chokkers, and it would be a travesty if this went on and on, so a mistrial would be a travesty for all.
It sounds like the jury will settle in now that they have had their role explained to them multiple times, with emphasis on their responsibility.
If that responsibility has given any of the jurors a big head, I hope they pull it in and get down to serious business (as opposed to swanning about 'business as usual').
moo

 

[samanthaj]

Yes, there is going to a case for an appeal for sure now, probably a legal aid funded appeal even

Alioop, can we trouble you for your thoughts? Do you think we have anything to be worried about? At the very least do the defence have enough to warrant a check of the juror's internet searches to see what else may have been looked up? Given the Judge hasn't called a mistrial will this be the last we hear of this in the current trial? I assume the defence would then make a decision about appeal in the following weeks/months once we know the verdict?