The ulster rugby trial

Started by caprea, February 01, 2018, 11:45:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

brokencrossbar1

Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

You can challenge with cause. You used to be able to challenge without cause, a peremptory challenge it was known as but it actually  has been abolished in Northern Ireland but funnily enough is still in place in the Republic. It's is not US tv stuff. I had just forgotten about it as I haven't been involved in criminal work for a number of years. 

macdanger2

Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Quite the opposite in fact, every selection is 50/50 but the previous selection has no influence on the current outcome. It's like flipping a coin. So any given makeup (12/0, 9/3, 6/6, 0/12) has an equal chance of occurring

Clov

Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think
But in a 50/50 pool, the chances of randomly picking 9/3 in favour of one is miniscule.
So something must change the dynamics.
Someone said earlier in the thread that the "challenge with or without cause" is US tv stuff and not real and that you can only challenge if there's a direct link to the case or someone is clearly biased

Actually it isn't. The probability of getting a 9:3 split, or one more extreme, is 14.6%. In other words approximately 1 in 7 juries drawn from a population in which there are equal numbers of men and women will have a 9:3, or 10:2 or 11:1 or 12:0 split in one direction or the other.
"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit"

AQMP

Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 13, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience here David, but in human nature terms I see it slightly differently.  If the jury believe the complainant then I think all four are for the high jump. On the night in question these guys wouldn't have known consent or non consent if it had bit them in the arse.

David McKeown

#2074
Quote from: AQMP on March 13, 2018, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on March 13, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 01:27:08 PM
I think of all of them McIlroy is most at risk of conviction. His is a stand alone crime in that it's alleged exposure. Harrison's is kinda linked with Jackson and Olding I'm withholding information relating to their 'crimes'.  If they are found not guilty then I think the jury would have to find Harrison not guilty also. Not guaranteed but there's a strong possibility
Why would McIlroy be convicted of exposure and not Olding of rape and Jackson of at least sexual assault?

The woman alleges that the sexual contact with Jackson and Olding was not consensual. Jackson and Olding allege it was consensual.

The woman alleges that McIlroy exposing himself was uninvited on her part. McIlroy alleges it was invited.

It basically all comes down to to the same questions of whether consent was given or not, or whether there was reasonable belief in consent, across all three of these defendants.

I think it's completely different. The jury would be perfectly entitled to conclude the following. We believe the injured party. There was penetration from both Jackson and Olding, she didn't consent to it. However when we look at all the circumstances we can't be convinced that Jackson and Olding didn't reasonably believe she was consenting. We also believe that no penetration occurred with McIlroy however in all the circumstances we don't believe he had a reasonable belief she was consenting to him exposing himself.

In such a scenario Jackson and Olding would be not guilty and McIlroy would be guilty. I still have no idea what the substance of the charges are against Harrison.

I bow to your superior knowledge and experience here David, but in human nature terms I see it slightly differently.  If the jury believe the complainant then I think all four are for the high jump. On the night in question these guys wouldn't have known consent or non consent if it had bit them in the arse.

You could well be right. I gave up jury guessing years ago. I could understand not guilty for PJ and SO but guilty for McIlroy. I can't see a situation where PJ and SO are convicted but McIlroy acquitted. I don't know how that would be possible. That's not to say I think those are the likely verdicts just I can't see a situation where convictions for PJ and SO but an acquittal for McIlroy would be deemed a safe verdict.

As to juries in general they are selected at random from people on the electoral registrar. Some people such as teachers nurses, self employed etc can be excused at the discretion of the judge. From there about 15 will be selected randomly and can only be challenged with cause. The first 12 will form the jury and the others may replace them before the trial starts if someone reason one of the original jurors is unsuitable. (For example knows a witness or can attend for entire duration of the trial.) 9/3 split is far from unheard of.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

seafoid

The 3 top shaggers were all extremely drunk.

They remind me of a song by Arab Strap

"How am I supposed to walk you home 
When you're at least fifty feet ahead? 
'Cause you walked off in a huff 
And I'm that pissed I can't remember what it was I said"

https://youtu.be/wX4WRlsl6fo

A lot of their replies were post fact or on how they would have behaved if they were as they imagine themselves while sober  and there was no coherence between the 3 .
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Milltown Row2

Quote from: seafoid on March 13, 2018, 05:27:08 PM
The 3 top shaggers were all extremely drunk.

They remind me of a song by Arab Strap

"How am I supposed to walk you home
When you're at least fifty feet ahead?
'Cause you walked off in a huff
And I'm that pissed I can't remember what it was I said"

https://youtu.be/wX4WRlsl6fo

A lot of their replies were post fact or on how they would have behaved if they were as they imagine themselves while sober  and there was no coherence between the 3 .

Put three drunks at a party and you'll not get the same stories at all every time!
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

StGallsGAA

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

And teachers.

Is that cos they're considered too f***ng stupid to understand a legal argument?

mrdeeds

Quote from: hardstation on March 13, 2018, 07:48:38 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on March 13, 2018, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on March 13, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 13, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 13, 2018, 01:09:13 PM
Was chatting to the brother in-law who's a solicitor and he was saying by now the jury will have already made their mind up and the arguments at the end wont make a big difference.. for him, having 9 lads on the jury is crazy and they might be aquitted on that..

I think there's more than a reasonable doubt where their guilt is involved, so who knows

The gender bias on the jury seems extraordinary, although clearly doesnt guarantee getting off as there's definitely more than a few lads on here who would convict based on what they heard (and one who'd convict before he heard anything!).

David, do you have an explanation as to why it's not 50/50 or at least 5/7 ?
Do you have to be in the workforce to get called? Maybe stay-at-home parents would be out of the net given they need to be at home for their children

Juries are picked randomly by the court clerk. The defence and prosecution can challenge with or without cause.  Everyone is expected to do jury service apart from members of the security forces, those within the legal profession and people with certain criminal convictions I think

And teachers.

Is that cos they're considered too f***ng stupid to understand a legal argument?
Sounds like work.

Primary school teachers.

Jeepers Creepers

Harrison the only one to keep his trousers on and could well be the only one done for his charge.

David McKeown

What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Jeepers Creepers

Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

Syferus

Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 13, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 13, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
What exactly is the allegation against Harrison I've yet to read what it is. Simply deleting messages without more is not a crime.

is he not charged with perverting the course of justice / withholding information or will these be dropped when the other three are aquitted?

Why would charges be dropped even if the worst happens and the other three are acquitted? I think you've been watching too much Judge Rinder.

Hound

Quote from: macdanger2 on March 13, 2018, 04:13:53 PM

Quite the opposite in fact, every selection is 50/50 but the previous selection has no influence on the current outcome. It's like flipping a coin. So any given makeup (12/0, 9/3, 6/6, 0/12) has an equal chance of occurring

Good man Mickey D!! You need to read the probability chapter again.

macdanger2

Quote from: Hound on March 13, 2018, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 13, 2018, 04:13:53 PM

Quite the opposite in fact, every selection is 50/50 but the previous selection has no influence on the current outcome. It's like flipping a coin. So any given makeup (12/0, 9/3, 6/6, 0/12) has an equal chance of occurring

Good man Mickey D!! You need to read the probability chapter again.

Doh, my bad. Forgot to account for the fact that there are more ways for some outcomes to happen than others  :(

~ 5% chance of a 9/3 male/female split