IQ tests for jurors?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

Seriously.. read about this fething halfwit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13792080

Judged by a jury of my peers? How is this big fat toothless chav one of my peers?

I say we should have IQ tests for jurors, and if your a fething idiot, your not allowed to serve on a jury.

Thoughts?

**WarOne**

You better hope that she is one of your jurors in your trial when you go on an insane spree of violence against your fellow "peers."

**SagesStone**

That article needs to blame the victim more.

Communicating like she did had to be the most obvious and easiest to find way she could have done it. Might as well ran out in traffic yelling out case details instead.

I agree though, they need a better way to acquire some more competent jurors. They do kind of have to pay attention after all, as most of the time the decision they have to make is important for most involved.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Wow. Still, a lady like this got me out of jury duty once during the selection process.

Still sucks they had to toss a 6 mil. case like that though...

**WarOne**

n0t_u wrote:That article needs to blame the victim more.
Communicating like she did had to be the most obvious and easiest to find way she could have done it. Might as well ran out in traffic yelling out case details instead.

I agree though, they need a better way to acquire some more competent jurors. They do kind of have to pay attention after all, as most of the time the decision they have to make is important for most involved.

Here is America, we have Law and Order. Nothing like that ever happens thanks to our incredible production teams here.

**daedalus**

God, how horrifying would it be for it to be released as news that you had a conversation that included:

Frail also said: "At least then yer all home n dry."

And Sewart responded: "Ha ha, ur mad. I really appreciate everythin. If i cud of kissed you all i would of done ha ha."

And you chaps give us trouble about not knowing English.

**Toastedandy**

The pair agreed to become Facebook friends after the trial.

Well, at least some good come out of this

**SilverMK2**

Any chance of a copy and paste? This sounds fun

**Toastedandy**

A juror who contacted a defendant via Facebook, causing a £6m drugs trial to collapse, has been jailed for eight months for contempt of court.

Joanne Fraill had admitted the charge, in the first UK case of its kind.

London's High Court heard that Fraill, 40, of Blackley, Greater Manchester, had contacted Jamie Sewart, 34, who had already been cleared in the drugs case.

Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC said Fraill's case had been taken to court to protect jury integrity.

'Calm down'
Sewart, of Bolton, was given a two-month sentence suspended for two years after she was found guilty of contempt.

Because other defendants were still on trial at the time of the contact between Fraill and Sewart, the judge decided to discharge the jury and the drugs case in Manchester, which cost £6m, collapsed.

Fraill cried uncontrollably in court, and gasped "eight months" - as did her family - as her sentence was handed down on Thursday.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who heard the case, then announced a short adjournment "for everyone to calm down".

Sentencing Fraill, Lord Judge said in a written ruling: "Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror, and her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial."

Solicitor General Edward Garnier said it was important that "the integrity of the jury system was maintained and preserved".
Later Sewart said: "I really feel for the woman [Fraill]. She's got kids. She apologised and she's not a bad lady."

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says Fraill is likely to spend four months in jail, at which point she'll be eligible for early release.

Mr Garnier said any form of communication by jurors was subject to the same rules as those laid down in the court.

"One doesn't need to get too hung up about the magic of the internet," he said.

"Jurors have been able to gossip with their neighbours, be influenced by their friends and go to the public library to look up things. What is important is that the integrity of the jury system should be preserved and protected," he said outside court.

"Whether you communicate by Facebook, whether you research on the internet, whether you talk over your garden fence and are influenced by others, you must understand when you take an oath as a member of a jury, when you disobey that oath or when you disobey the instructions of the judge, and it is discovered, you may very well be held in contempt."

The case, brought by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, was heard by Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Holroyde.

Lord Judge had previously told Sewart that any prison sentence on her would be suspended because she has a three-year-old child from whom she had already been separated during the crown court trial.

At the High Court hearing, mother-of-three Fraill admitted she had made online contact with Sewart and discussed the case with her while the jury's deliberations were continuing.

'Home n dry'

Jamie Sewart was given a suspended sentence by the judge
She also admitted revealing details of the jury's deliberations during that online conversation - contrary to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 - and conducting internet research into a defendant whose case she was trying as a juror during the trial.

That was despite the judge reminding all the jurors that they must decide the case solely on the evidence given in court.

Fraill was a juror in a case which had already been halted twice.

On 3 August last year, the judge in the third trial of the alleged drugs gang gave jurors the option of deciding the verdict by a majority rather than unanimously.

But the High Court was told the trial was stopped the following day when Sewart's solicitor informed the court that his client and Fraill had been in contact via Facebook.

The court heard the initial contact came after Fraill went on the social networking website and tracked down Sewart, saying: "You should know me - I've cried with you enough."

Fraill was said by her lawyer to have felt "considerable empathy" for Sewart as the trial "gathered in momentum and intensity".

"Can't believe they had you on remand," she said in another one of their conversations, a transcript, which contained the pair's misspellings, released by the court shows.

“All that note-taking was just killing time. lol. drew more than i wrote lol”

Fraill had added that she thought she had recognised one of the other defendants and, when asked by Sewart how the jury was dealing with one of the outstanding charges, said: "Cant get anywaone to go either no one budging... don't say anything cause jamie they could cause miss trial".

The two continued to talk about the case and used expressions such as "lol" and other internet slang.

Frail also said: "At least then yer all home n dry."

And Sewart responded: "Ha ha, ur mad. I really appreciate everythin. If i cud of kissed you all i would of done ha ha."

She went on to say: "Keep in touch and I'll get you a nice pressie..."

The pair agreed to become Facebook friends after the trial.

'Terrified of prison'
Fraill also described her role on the jury in their conversations. "All that note-taking was just killing time. lol. drew more than i wrote lol," she said.

Mr Garnier had told the High Court that the contact and discussion had been in direct breach of the judge's repeated directions to the jury - and it constituted a contempt of court.

Peter Wright QC, for Fraill, said his client was terrified at the prospect of prison and was distraught and inconsolable about what she had done.

He described her as a woman of completely unblemished character before she "lost her senses" in the Facebook exchanges.

He said she had contacted Sewart only because she saw her own life in the younger woman's.

"Her conduct, though reprehensible, was not calculated or designed by her to subvert the trial process, although it is conceded that that was an inevitable consequence of it," he added.

**mattyrm**

Toastedandy wrote:
The pair agreed to become Facebook friends after the trial.

Well, at least some good come out of this

lol!

Here mate..

BBC says...

A juror who contacted a defendant via Facebook, causing a £6m drugs trial to collapse, has been jailed for eight months for contempt of court.

Joanne Fraill had admitted the charge, in the first UK case of its kind.

London's High Court heard that Fraill, 40, of Blackley, Greater Manchester, had contacted Jamie Sewart, 34, who had already been cleared in the drugs case.

Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC said Fraill's case had been taken to court to protect jury integrity.

Sewart, of Bolton, was given a two-month sentence suspended for two years after she was found guilty of contempt.

Because other defendants were still on trial at the time of the contact between Fraill and Sewart, the judge decided to discharge the jury and the drugs case in Manchester, which cost £6m, collapsed.

Fraill cried uncontrollably in court, and gasped "eight months" - as did her family - as her sentence was handed down on Thursday.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who heard the case, then announced a short adjournment "for everyone to calm down".

Sentencing Fraill, Lord Judge said in a written ruling: "Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror, and her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial."

Solicitor General Edward Garnier said it was important that "the integrity of the jury system was maintained and preserved".
Later Sewart said: "I really feel for the woman [Fraill]. She's got kids. She apologised and she's not a bad lady."

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says Fraill is likely to spend four months in jail, at which point she'll be eligible for early release.

Mr Garnier said any form of communication by jurors was subject to the same rules as those laid down in the court.

"One doesn't need to get too hung up about the magic of the internet," he said.

"Jurors have been able to gossip with their neighbours, be influenced by their friends and go to the public library to look up things. What is important is that the integrity of the jury system should be preserved and protected," he said outside court.

"Whether you communicate by Facebook, whether you research on the internet, whether you talk over your garden fence and are influenced by others, you must understand when you take an oath as a member of a jury, when you disobey that oath or when you disobey the instructions of the judge, and it is discovered, you may very well be held in contempt."

The case, brought by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, was heard by Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Holroyde.

Lord Judge had previously told Sewart that any prison sentence on her would be suspended because she has a three-year-old child from whom she had already been separated during the crown court trial.

At the High Court hearing, mother-of-three Fraill admitted she had made online contact with Sewart and discussed the case with her while the jury's deliberations were continuing.

'Home n dry'

Jamie Sewart was given a suspended sentence by the judge
She also admitted revealing details of the jury's deliberations during that online conversation - contrary to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 - and conducting internet research into a defendant whose case she was trying as a juror during the trial.

That was despite the judge reminding all the jurors that they must decide the case solely on the evidence given in court.

Fraill was a juror in a case which had already been halted twice.

On 3 August last year, the judge in the third trial of the alleged drugs gang gave jurors the option of deciding the verdict by a majority rather than unanimously.

But the High Court was told the trial was stopped the following day when Sewart's solicitor informed the court that his client and Fraill had been in contact via Facebook.

The court heard the initial contact came after Fraill went on the social networking website and tracked down Sewart, saying: "You should know me - I've cried with you enough."

Fraill was said by her lawyer to have felt "considerable empathy" for Sewart as the trial "gathered in momentum and intensity".

"Can't believe they had you on remand," she said in another one of their conversations, a transcript, which contained the pair's misspellings, released by the court shows.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

All that note-taking was just killing time. lol. drew more than i wrote lol”

Joanne Fraill
Fraill had added that she thought she had recognised one of the other defendants and, when asked by Sewart how the jury was dealing with one of the outstanding charges, said: "Cant get anywaone to go either no one budging... don't say anything cause jamie they could cause miss trial".

The two continued to talk about the case and used expressions such as "lol" and other internet slang.

Frail also said: "At least then yer all home n dry."

And Sewart responded: "Ha ha, ur mad. I really appreciate everythin. If i cud of kissed you all i would of done ha ha."

She went on to say: "Keep in touch and I'll get you a nice pressie..."

The pair agreed to become Facebook friends after the trial.

'Terrified of prison'
Fraill also described her role on the jury in their conversations. "All that note-taking was just killing time. lol. drew more than i wrote lol," she said.

Mr Garnier had told the High Court that the contact and discussion had been in direct breach of the judge's repeated directions to the jury - and it constituted a contempt of court.

Peter Wright QC, for Fraill, said his client was terrified at the prospect of prison and was distraught and inconsolable about what she had done.

He described her as a woman of completely unblemished character before she "lost her senses" in the Facebook exchanges.

He said she had contacted Sewart only because she saw her own life in the younger woman's.

"Her conduct, though reprehensible, was not calculated or designed by her to subvert the trial process, although it is conceded that that was an inevitable consequence of it," he added.

**SilverMK2**

Oh dear...

**mattyrm**

Yes indeed, brainless fat chav is allowed to be a juror in a 6m trial.

Seriously.. IQ tests. I should be PM. I have all these good ideas..

Up next, Big brother style executions every friday, with Matty killing the criminal of your choice, with the weapon of your choice! Live! (Text HUNTLEY/HAMMER to 8117, texts cost 25p)

**Frazzled**

Why are you assuming thats an IQ issue and not a bias issue?

**mattyrm**

Frazz, LOOK at the fether.

Also, why would she be bias if they didnt know each other before the trial?

**Kilkrazy**

We don't know her IQ.

I've done jury service. It was in the mid 80s so maybe things have changed.

From my experience, you can probably expect to get one or two eejits of some kind or another on the jury but the rest are serious minded citizens who do their best to give a fair verdict on the evidence.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote:Frazz, LOOK at the fether.

Also, why would she be bias if they didnt know each other before the trial?

Everyone's biased. Thats the whole point of voir dire, is to pick a jury thats biased in your favor. People get paid a lot of money just to specialize in jury selection. I know, I've paid them. This juror just got sloppy. Ok so she is an idiot after all.

"There is no justice, just us."

**Albatross**

Kilkrazy wrote:We don't know her IQ.

We have seen that she is barely literate...

**Graveyman**

While I do think there should be some way to screen out complete idiots, if there was an IQ test everyone would fail it just to avoid jury duty.

**Frazzled**

Graveyman wrote:While I do think there should be some way to screen out complete idiots, if there was an IQ test everyone would fail it just to avoid jury duty.

Those would be illegal in the USA. If it hasn't already been tested it would immediately be thrown out. Absent your free picks (and I think your free pics -depending on the state-can't be dscriminatory) you have to strike for cause, which is generally geared towards bias.

**Avatar 720**

Graveyman wrote:While I do think there should be some way to screen out complete idiots, if there was an IQ test everyone would fail it just to avoid jury duty.

I don't care if they purposefully fail it, it just means we actually get willing jurors who have a sheet of paper saying they're smart enough to know what they're doing.

Although intelligence is never a substitute for common sense.

**SagesStone**

Obviously instead of administering a test they'd go through school records and divide people based on their scores if they went with an IQ requirement; to avoid people failing on purpose. Small trial, anyone can be picked. Big trial, obviously with more at stake the requirements would be stricter.

**Frazzled**

Avatar 720 wrote:
Graveyman wrote:While I do think there should be some way to screen out complete idiots, if there was an IQ test everyone would fail it just to avoid jury duty.

I don't care if they purposefully fail it, it just means we actually get willing jurors who have a sheet of paper saying they're smart enough to know what they're doing.

Although intelligence is never a substitute for common sense.

Well thats your problem right there. You said willing. You find me twenty willing jurors in the US and I'll show you people who probably shouldn't be on a jury

**Eldanar**

Interesting...

Looks like they were wanting to make an example of someone.

Jury taint is always a problem. An even bigger problem (at least in the past, not sure about the curent state of affairs though) has been that anyone with half a brain, and a job, can usually get out of jury duty before voire dire even begins...

**Graveyman**

I'm willing, only because my job would pay for it the whole timeand it would be interesting to hear out a good case(not some petty lawsuit). Unfortunately the last two chances I had I got kicked out. Apparently when you're there to determine if some murdering A-hole should get life or death, they don't want you around if you believe that the ONLY option should be death.

**kronk**

8 months is too short for fething up a trial.

She's lucky she didn't get 2 years.

**Kilkrazy**

Albatross wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:We don't know her IQ.

We have seen that she is barely literate...

Literacy is to do with whether you were taught how to read and write, not IQ.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Graveyman wrote:I'm willing, only because my job would pay for it the whole timeand it would be interesting to hear out a good case(not some petty lawsuit). Unfortunately the last two chances I had I got kicked out. Apparently when you're there to determine if some murdering A-hole should get life or death, they don't want you around if you believe that the ONLY option should be death.

That's called prejudice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldanar wrote:Interesting...

Looks like they were wanting to make an example of someone.

Precisely that.

We've having a bit of a drive in the UK to overturn the idea that what happens on the Internet stays on the Internet.

**Frazzled**

GW has made it to the courts!

**Graveyman**

I'm ok with this particular case of prejudice on my part. I actually had a lawyer claim that the perp (he was already found guilty) should be given leniency (life) because he had a hair lip and was treated badly as a child. So, because of that it was not as bad that he lured 3 teenagers out to the desert, individually, and murdered them(raped his half sister first) One was killed with a shotgun up the backside, among another dozen shots. But hey! The poor guy had a hair lip!

Sorry to get off topic

**Avatar 720**

Graveyman wrote:I'm ok with this particular case of prejudice on my part. I actually had a lawyer claim that the perp (he was already found guilty) should be given leniency (life) because he had a hair lip and was treated badly as a child. So, because of that it was not as bad that he lured 3 teenagers out to the desert, individually, and murdered them(raped his half sister first) One was killed with a shotgun up the backside, among another dozen shots. But hey! The poor guy had a hair lip!

Sorry to get off topic

It's partly excusable as a lawyer in that position. You're paid to defend your client, so you'd try everything in your power to do it.

The fault there lies not with the lawyer, but anyone who agrees with him.

**Mr. Burning**

Frazzled wrote:GW has made it to the courts!

Juror: I red bout ur games, you totly own army mens, GW roolz!.

Mark Wells: LOL, Yes I do.

Juror: You be out of this in a bit, youz has copyright. eill sort you owt.

Mark Wells: Thanks, When This ends I'll get you a nice pressie, hows about some finecast models?

Juror: I'm not that fick!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:
Graveyman wrote:I'm ok with this particular case of prejudice on my part. I actually had a lawyer claim that the perp (he was already found guilty) should be given leniency (life) because he had a hair lip and was treated badly as a child. So, because of that it was not as bad that he lured 3 teenagers out to the desert, individually, and murdered them(raped his half sister first) One was killed with a shotgun up the backside, among another dozen shots. But hey! The poor guy had a hair lip!

Sorry to get off topic

It's partly excusable as a lawyer in that position. You're paid to defend your client, so you'd try everything in your power to do it.

The fault there lies not with the lawyer, but anyone who agrees with him.

Yep, The Lawyer has to defend his/her client. be they shoplifters, Car thieves or baby rapists.