Judge instructing a jury to convict

Northerner

Northerner

Well-known member
Case in the news at the moment and judge has said "You will return verdicts of guilty to the charges of murder against the accused,"

The jury has retired to consider its verdict.

Am I missing something here. What would judge do if they don't agree? I don't understand the point of having a jury then?

Judge Instructs
 
The killing was admitted but a plea of diminished responsibility was put forward. As there was no evidence put forward to support this so the judge directed the jury to find him guilty of murder.

He could not have done so if the individual had pleaded not guilty.
 
I had the opposite happen when I did jury duty. The defendant faced 13 charges but the prosecution withdrew evidence on one of them mid-trial. The judge told the jury foreman to stand up and say we'd found him not guilty on that charge.

We understood it was a legal quirk, but we all felt very uncomfortable with it, especially as he was very obviously guilty of all the other charges.
 
Last edited:
****, I wish I hadn't read that. Killing a kid.......

Just no words. Poor woman and child. I know he'll be 88 before he gets out, but this should be a whole life sentence for me. From reading the article, it was absolutely premeditated.
 
I was watching a trial once and at the very end, after all the evidence and witnesses, the judge instructed the jury to find the defendant Not Guilty on a 'Point of Law'.
He apologised to the jury that he couldn't go into more details.

I was later told that it was brought to the judge's attention that a previous trial was so similar in details that the outcome had to be the same to preserve the integrity of the system.
Not sure how true that is.
 
Rofesleg said:
I was watching a trial once and at the very end, after all the evidence and witnesses, the judge instructed the jury to find the defendant Not Guilty on a 'Point of Law'.
He apologised to the jury that he couldn't go into more details.

I was later told that it was brought to the judge's attention that a previous trial was so similar in details that the outcome had to be the same to preserve the integrity of the system.
Not sure how true that is.
Click to expand...
It's probable. Our law is based in precedent so I assume they would want to maintain that.
 
In this case it’s clear why the judge did what he did. But in most cases the judge will give fairly clear instructions to the jury in his summing up. A case I sat on someone overtook a car and ended up causing a fatal crash. Without going into detail it didn’t appear black and white. Judges summing up he said “ if you think any of his actions or inactions caused the accident then you must find him guilty”. Not a lot of wiggle room there, he didn’t need to overtake.
 
Horrific crime. The murder of a defenceles mother and her child. By a hammer and strangulation.
Justice in this case IMO would be death by lethal injection.
 
If you think of the judge as the judge of law and the jury to be judges of truth, these decisions start to make sense.
 
When a well known football manager was on trial for indecent assault of children, the judge instructed the jury to find him not guilty as multiple prosecution witnesses refused to give evidence at the last minute. I think its quite common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top