The Hidden Glasgow Forums

Who cops it when the judge notices we're trying to influence the jury?

Dexter St. Clair wrote:Who cops it when the judge notices we're trying to influence the jury?

The jury will have been instructed not to read or listen to anything about this case in the media or cyberspace.

as the media have been full of basically how Tommy is guilty right from the start showing him a bit of support on here wont do any harm. I would love for him and Gail to get a not guilty on this as knowing the guy way back I dont think he is the type to go for shennanigans as described, fake tan yes but not what he is accused of

reckon because of all the media bullshit the best he can hope for is not proven

a wee change in the case today,in mr and mrs sheridans favour as well.

so technically it is very possible...if the jury cant decide..or are not unamimous.that the verdict could very well be not proven..

The jury have to decide on two outcomes, conviction or aquittal. There are two ways acquittal can be acheived, not guilty or not proven, but fundamentally, the jury are only really looking at conviction or acquittal.

So 8 people or more need to decide whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.

In terms of the not guilty/not proven, it could be a 4/4 split, it really doesn't matter, it would still be a majority in favour of an acquittal. The effect would be the same, with 7 for conviction, and 8 for acquittal. All the accused look for is for more people on the jury than not thinking the Crown cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it matters not a jot how the acquittal verdict is made up.

Vinny the Mackem wrote:The jury have to decide on two outcomes, conviction or aquittal. There are two ways acquittal can be acheived, not guilty or not proven, but fundamentally, the jury are only really looking at conviction or acquittal.

So 8 people or more need to decide whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.

In terms of the not guilty/not proven, it could be a 4/4 split, it really doesn't matter, it would still be a majority in favour of an acquittal. The effect would be the same, with 7 for conviction, and 8 for acquittal. All the accused look for is for more people on the jury than not thinking the Crown cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it matters not a jot how the acquittal verdict is made up.

A good explanation and one that cannot be made too often.
In England if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10-2. In Scotland there has never been a requirement for verdicts to be unanimous; they are reached by simple majority. (People were occasionally hanged on majority verdicts in Scotland.) Juries may also return the verdict of not proven. The backing of only eight jurors is needed to return a guilty verdict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

Given the amount of witnesses that have rolled into court and said that Tommy Sheridan is lying, would lead most at the current point of the trial to believe that he probably did commit perjury.

However, why did all these witnesses, several whom have given evidence at both trials not state at the first trial that Tommy Sheridan was lying? Will those witnesses who have changed their evidence to the Court in the current perjury trial from the previous libel trial be charged with perjury also?

The amount of people stating that Tommy Sheridan told them in confidence that he had been to the swingers club seems to good to be true. I would think that most of them are robust witnesses, but there seems to be more than a few fantasists among the witnesses for the prosecution.

Will there be a clear cut verdict? Or will we after all these weeks see the Judge direct the Jury before they retire to reach a verdict?

One thing that is clear is that a lot of Tax payers money has been spent on the trial.

Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.

hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.

Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.

The Egg Man wrote:

hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.

Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.

And to be honest, there's not a damn thing wrong with that

Fat Cat wrote:

The Egg Man wrote:

hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.

Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.

And to be honest, there's not a damn thing wrong with that ::):

Except that he is guilty 100% !

s2u the last time I was on jury duty the crooks were guilty as sin but some of the jury had a soft spot for the two East End criminals and gave them a not guilty verdict just because they hated the police. Its about time for a change, how its done I dont have a clue .

scaryman2u wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:

The Egg Man wrote:

hazy wrote:Here is a scenario. If some of the jurors hate the NOTW that much they , just out of spite return a not proven verdict. Laugh, I would pay my licence fee.

Some folks think that's how Tommy won the original case.

And to be honest, there's not a damn thing wrong with that ::):

Except that he is guilty 100% !

I wish you'd mentioned that before we went to all the bother and expense of a trial. The judge could just have phoned Tommy and said 'scaryman2u says you're guilty so you're not getting the money and you're going to jail for perjury'.

It would all have been so much easier.

Yes, and it would have spared us all from being done for contempt of court.