GUILTY UK - Logan Mwangi, 5, found dead in Wales River, Bridgend, 31 July 2021 *arrests, inc. minor* #5

[katydid23]

I know the jury aren't allowed to Google the case so they aren't influenced, but how would anyone know if they did this?

I've always wondered the same thing. Can the prosecution or defense seize jurors cell phones or get warrants for their phone logs if they think they broke the rules? I WOULDN'T THINK SO AND HOPE NOT...but who knows?

 

[Dotta]

I know the jury aren't allowed to Google the case so they aren't influenced, but how would anyone know if they did this?

Trust, confidence and respect?

 

[VioletLilac]

Not everyone's trustworthy though.

 

[Dotta]

Not everyone's trustworthy though.

But they decide the verdict.
If they cannot be trusted, then the system is doomed.

 

[VioletLilac]

I had a quick Google of "juries googling the case" and several cases came up where this has happened and they've been found out. I'm not sure how they were found out as I've not read the articles yet. Seems like this has been raised as an issue.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2013/feb/06/trial-by-google-risk-jury-system

Bit worrying as you'd like to think people would get a fair trial.

 

[VioletLilac]

Seems like a couple of cases have collapsed because jury members have googled and then shared information they've found with the rest of the jury.

 

[Skigh]

Once someone is charged the press are not allowed to publish any information which could prejudice a trial. So a juror googling should not be able to find anything that they do not hear in the trial unless they contact people with inside knowledge of the defendant.

 

[VioletLilac]

That's good. There was one article I saw where a woman googled a defendant's previous conviction and shared this info with the rest of the jury and the trial collapsed. Anyway I'm sure they are given lots of warnings about doing this and what the consequences would be

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

There are no Verified mental health experts in this discussion and attempts at diagnosing such issues is not allowed. We run across this in many discussions where members speculate or guess regarding ADHD, bipolar, borderline personality, psychopathy, narcissism, autism, Aspergers, etc etc.

Unless someone can link to MSM where it is stipulated that the accused had ADHD or any other specific mental health / personality disorder, it is off topic so please stop discussing it.

 

[Popcorn80]

Am I the only one who feels like this has been the longest 5 days!(must have felt like forever for the poor jurors) Hopeful for a quick Verdict but also wouldn’t be surprised if it takes a lot longer.

 

[Doughy]

But they decide the verdict.
If they cannot be trusted, then the system is doomed.

Have you seen the voting record of the UK General public...

I imagine jurors would slip up if they've been doing their own research at some point and it would get reported. It's something I do wonder about though. 20 years ago you'd struggle to know anyone's past convictions but now everything is seconds away on the Internet.

 

[neteditor]

Have you seen the voting record of the UK General public...

I imagine jurors would slip up if they've been doing their own research at some point and it would get reported. It's something I do wonder about though. 20 years ago you'd struggle to know anyone's past convictions but now everything is seconds away on the Internet.

I think a juror who is stupid enough to disobey a judge, is also stupid enough to say "But I read on the internet that..." in the jury room.

Once someone is charged the press are not allowed to publish any information which could prejudice a trial. So a juror googling should not be able to find anything that they do not hear in the trial unless they contact people with inside knowledge of the defendant.

It would only take minutes to find a few forums (like this) and Facebook groups where all kinds of gossip is discussed as fact.

 

[neteditor]

I've always wondered the same thing. Can the prosecution or defense seize jurors cell phones or get warrants for their phone logs if they think they broke the rules? I WOULDN'T THINK SO AND HOPE NOT...but who knows?

Yes of course they could, it's a criminal offence!

Here's one case: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/jury-foreman-sentenced-over-internet-research/5111157.article

 

[katydid23]

Yes of course they could, it's a criminal offence!

Here's one case: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/jury-foreman-sentenced-over-internet-research/5111157.article

I understand that---but I was talking about a situation where they just wondered if someone might have googled.

To get a warrant to seize a phone one needs probable cause. So I was saying they would need a valid reason to take someones phone or computer, othe3r than just them 'wondering' if a juror had cheated.

 

[neteditor]

I understand that---but I was talking about a situation where they just wondered if someone might have googled.

To get a warrant to seize a phone one needs probable cause. So I was saying they would need a valid reason to take someones phone or computer, othe3r than just them 'wondering' if a juror had cheated.

Why would they wonder, though, if they didn't have reason to? Either something is suspected or it isn't.

 

[katydid23]

Why would they wonder, though, if they didn't have reason to? Either something is suspected or it isn't.

One solid reason would be if the juror said something, let it slip out in conversation.

There have been jurors 'let go' because other jurors or court employees went to the judge to say they thought the juror had spoken about something in the news, etc.

Would that be enough for LE to come and seize one's laptop and cell?

 

[neteditor]

One solid reason would be if the juror said something, let it slip out in conversation.

There have been jurors 'let go' because other jurors or court employees went to the judge to say they thought the juror had spoken about something in the news, etc.

Would that be enough for LE to come and seize one's laptop and cell?

Yes it would. If the juror said something that put them under suspicion, even in jest for example, the police would have power to investigate a criminal offence including seizure and examination of evidence.

 

[Dotta]

But why would anybody jeopardize the justice for the victim?
If I were a Juror, I would be offended/humiliated if somebody even thinks I could break the law.

The best deterrent, in my opinion, woud be a financial punishment, eg: paying the cost of the next trial.

 

[neteditor]

But why would anybody jeopardize the justice for the victim?
If I were a Juror, I would be offended/humiliated if somebody even thinks I could break the law.

The best deterrent, in my opinion, woud be a financial punishment, eg: paying the cost of the next trial.

These cases are rare and they always make headline news (in the UK anyway). That would deter me, the whole country knowing I was that sort of person.

 

[Dotta]

So today Verdict Watch starts.

I think by Friday everything will be clear.