The judge decided to throw out the jury and pick a new jury because one of the members of the jury was found with an academic paper about the unhelpfulness of trying to quantify how often false rape accusations were made. I knew that judges want to control what information a jury is allowed to hear in making their decision, but this seems ridiculous. This did not involve specific information about the case, but was an academic paper with an argument looking at data relating to that type of issue. It would be tantamount to a jury who is trying to decide a rape case being banned from reading any arguments about false rape accusations and injustice in this political forum site we are in. What this is about is control of information, in cases that will decide a criminal suspect's fate. Australian Supreme Court Chief Justice Lucy McCallum is the one her made the decision to throw out the jury. Some background of the case: Mr Lehrmann was accused of raping his then-colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House after a night out drinking in March 2019. He pleaded not guilty and said no sexual activity occurred between the pair. The trial ran for 12 days and saw 29 witnesses take the stand, including Liberal senators Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash. Jury discharged in trial of Bruce Lehrmann, who was accused of raping Brittany Higgins, Elizabeth Byrne and Markus Mannheim, ABC News Australia, October 26, 2022
Was the paper an affidavit, given under oath? This person was in effect getting testimony without giving either side an opportunity to refute it. The jury is supposed to consider the evidence as given, not investigate on its own. It goes to the separation of powers. I presume Australia has the same concept. The legislative branch makes the law, the executive branch investigates possible violations and the judicial branch makes the final decision. A jury would be part of the judicial branch, not the executive.
You have a valid point. I think maybe the issue is that some countries such as the United States have a little bit more of a "democratic" "do-it-yourself" attitude including when it comes to trials and juries. The jury is "supposed to" be the one to make the decision, and the jury is not really truly "making the decision" if the jury can only hear what the judge allows them to hear. In the United States, there is more of an ingrained societal distrust for authority. People believe a jury of ordinary people should decide an accused person's fate. In several other countries they have appointed judges make the decisions in criminal trials and do not have juries, but that is not seen as the American way. One possible solution to this conundrum might be to allow the jury to present evidence in a trial, something that is definitely not allowed under the current system. (That might not even be pragmatic though, since it could be too difficult if there were 12 individuals all wanting to present evidence, and even if the jury all had to agree, then you would still end up with individuals on the jury exposed to evidence even though the evidence did not make it into the court room) Another issue is that in these academic papers, arguments are not the same thing as evidence. Do we think it is okay to let the jury be exposed to outside arguments so long as it does not contain any evidence or statistical studies? If I'm a member on a jury considering a rape case, should it be okay for me to read an academic paper discussing the logic and containing arguments about what the burden of evidence should be for a conviction in a rape case?
Do the prosecution and defense both agree it's okay? Is the evidence in the paper unbiased? Do all the experts agree on the conclusion? What are the consequences for the author if he cooks his statistics or just changes his mind? You're opening up an economy sized can of worms with this idea. Easier just to try the case again. The judge made the right decision.
Why would the prosecution agree to allow evidence to be introduced that would not help them win their argument? Look, the evidence is either going to help the prosecution or the defense. I can't envision a scenario where they are both going to agree. You do have a point there, theoretically, but keep in mind experts who give witness testimony are virtually never punished or held responsible for faulty explanations. (I'd challenge you to be able to find even one case of this, if you can find it) We are talking about expert testimony not directly relating to evidence in the specific case. The expert testimony would have to do with the overall type of issue. (Example: Not having to do with the specific rape that happened, but an expert on the issue of rape) You are right, it is potentially opening up a big can of worms, but some of that could go both ways. These are important issues that need to be discussed. Trying to cut the jury off from access to information could result in someone innocent being convicted. Maybe the defense attorney is just not that good, for example. Maybe the judges are not allowing the jury to be informed about something they really should be informed about. The judge might not let the defense bring up the issue of false rape accusations, using the justification it is "irrelevant" to the case, or that it could "prejudice" the jury.
It does not seem at all "ridiculous," to not have jurors being swayed, after the start of a trial, by arguments they read online. Juries are supposed to base their verdicts, on just the information presented, at trial. And they are also prescreened, by the two counsels, to eliminate those with potential bias. So why would you think that it would be fine for a juror, once selected, to then start developing a bias? IOW, let's say that you get picked to be a juror, based on having no preconceptions, regarding fake rape accusations. Then, during the trial, you do develop new ideas about this, from some outside source: ideas which, had you stated them while being evaluated by the judge, prosecutor, & defense, would have led to your dismissal. Can't you see how this would be automatic grounds for a mistrial? The main reason, that judges try to control information, BTW, is specifically to avoid giving grounds for appeals or, worse yet, to have mistrials declared. Your understanding of court proceedings, for someone who starts so many threads about them, is puzzlingly clueless. What this academic paper, the juror was reading, amounts to, is evidence: akin to expert testimony. As such, it would have to be reviewed first, by the judge, for its admissibility. IOW, is this particular view, the accepted view, of all, or is it just one of a number of perspectives? If it were allowed to be presented by one side, in the trial, the other side would have the opportunity to rebut it. For that matter, any discussion at all, of "false rape accusations," might be barred by a judge, from being mentioned, at trial. Jurors are not supposed to do their own, independent research, & evidence gathering.
I don't think you are listening. That is true for evidence specifically having to do with the case. In this thread, the issue is evidence (or just arguments) having to do with the type of issue in the case, but not the specific crime in the case.
Is that really true? Think about it. If that were really the case, then it would be best to only have 10 year old children on juries, because they do not already know anything from the outside world. Think about it. Every adult jury member is going to bring their own information, from their own past and things they have heard and read, into the case. Preconceived notions, beliefs. Isn't that how people are able to come to decisions in the first place?
Not at all-- did you read no farther than this, into my reply? I did not say a person should not have any knowledge. But if that information has led to a person's developing a certain bias-- let us say, for example, someone who believes research that proves to his satisfaction, that black people are naturally more inclined to criminality, than are white people, or are more criminal even than people of any other race-- that prejudice could potentially discriminate a juror against a defendant, and thereby compromise his getting a fair trial. Can you follow that? This is why jurors are questioned about their attitudes, before being seated on a jury. It is only after that point, when it has been agreed that you seem as though you could be an impartial juror, that it should be obvious that a juror should not go doing further independent research which might make him, no longer, impartial.
Now you seem to be trying to draw a distinction between information (information that could be useful towards forming an opinion and making a decision in a case) and information that could lead to an unfair bias. The line between those two is very often not a clear one. Pretty much ALL information leads to biases, of some sort or another. The argument you seem to be trying to make here doesn't even seem very specific to the question I brought up. I told you that juries already come into the courtroom with information in their heads, and asked how is that so different from not allowing them to have access to more information during the trial (if it is not about the specific case). You replied that we need to try to make sure juries do not get exposed to information that could bias them. Those two do not connect together very well. You see that, don't you? There's not much difference. Juries practically need to have prior information and be aware of reasoning and arguments for them to even make a decision in the first place. So I do not see how what you said has much to do with what I brought up.
I have difficulty believing anyone could be so stupid as to believe this. Sure, they try to eliminate or reduce certain unwanted bias in juries, but any exclusion procedures they use are in reality not going to be very effective. (That and lots of jurors lie to try to be excluded from jury duty, and others will lie to make sure they are not excluded, and I think that lying is not necessarily unethical in this situation) Given that, your argument here is incredibly weak. You're trying to argue that there is some sort of filter in place, when there is not.
This is the third, and last, time I will explain this to you. If you "come into the courtroom," with the idea that-- to try to stay a little closer to the case in question, since you seem to have easily gotten lost-- all women are liars, and cannot be trusted, this will most likely be discovered during your scrutiny by the judge, and the opposing counsels, and that bias, in any rape case, would get you excused from the trial. IOW, that attitude of yours, would be considered prejudicial; would disqualify you, in the eyes of the law, as someone fit to sit in judgement, on that sort of case. So, these biases that a person "comes into the courtroom," with, are evaluated, before seating you, on a jury. Let us analogize it, to giving someone a breath-a-lizer test, before allowing them to get behind the wheel of a car. And you cannot understand why, after you have been certified as a sober driver (= no disqualifying biases, preventing you from jury service), it's not all right for you to start drinking, after you've gotten behind the wheel?
I think that is mostly a red herring, and doesn't really actually have too much to do with the issue I brought up. It seems to be an argument from extremes you are trying to make. That academic study did not contain anything so blatantly prejudicial as suggesting that all women are liars. Some women who claim rape are lying. That's just a fact. Why would a study trying to look at the statistics of that be seen as prejudicial in the same way that you are describing? The fact of the matter is that the jury has to come into the courtroom with prior information and accumulated life wisdom to be able to have any decent chance of coming to a good decision. There is really no good way to screen this out. Any measures to try to screen out jurors who have this information (from prior life experience) is not going to be very effective. This is common sense. So how is it so different if the jury is exposed to some of this information during the trial? A lot of people in society are naive not to know or realize that there are a variety of different reasons that exist that can lead women to lie about rape, and this is not even very rare. So this is the sort of information the jury should definitely know about before they make their decision.
You are being ridiculous. Of course, an article about rape victims who had lied, is going to be prejudicial-- and irrelevant-- in any individual woman's rape case. Because others have lied, in no way reflects on the particular woman of the case on trial. Jurors are supposed to make their decisions, based on only the evidence at hand, in the case they are deciding; they are not supposed to judge a specific person's case, based on generalizations about others, in similar circumstances. I am not interested in continuing to "debate" something, which should be so readily apparent, to anyone.
I disagree. The jury should be aware and be reminded that women can lie, and that there are reasons for her to do so in that situation. And the jury should be exposed to some statistics, to get some idea of what percent of the time the accusers are lying in that type of situation. Not that anyone really knows for sure, but some experts who study this have some idea. The issue is, people can disagree over what type of evidence constitutes "prejudicial". And who should get to decide that? Just the judge? Different judges might have different opinions about whether to allow something like that.
I disagree with that. Decisions are based upon generalizations all the time. What you are saying is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality in the legal system.
Well maybe what seems "obvious" on the surface is not true, and you should do a little more thinking. I could list endless hypothetical examples of this.
I am pointing to what has long been the view of the courts; our legal tradition (and, I'm sure, Australia's, as well). Your thread is about a particular case. Regardless of if you agree with the tradition, you must understand the need of the judge to follow precedent, and well established process.
I am not sure it has been. (Like I said before, this was information that was not about the specific case) And if it has been, I disagree with it. Or at least there exists plenty of reason to question it, whether that is the way things should be.
Exactly my point. If you're going to introduce evidence, the prosecutors or defenders should get the chance to refute it. When I speak of consequences, I'm not just talking about the author. Would there be consequences for the defendant? If the new evidence exonerated him he could be due a new trial or simply set free. If the evidence of an expert is needed, both sides have the opportunity to introduce that evidence in court. If the judge doesn't allow it, it probably shouldn't be allowed. Judges are fallible human beings, BUT they are competent for the most part and try to do a good job, just like everyone else. As far as an incompetent defense goes, there are legal remedies for that.
You're having an unrealistic view again. It's very rare that new evidence will result in a new trial. The evidence has to be pretty strong. In fact, just because a jury would likely have come to a different decision if they had seen a certain piece of evidence is NOT considered a high enough bar to hold a new trial, in the justice system. (That may be something many do not realize) Something like an academic study would be considered so trivial by any judge that they would not even consider overturning a verdict or holding a new trial because of it. You're argument here is terrible. Theoretically, yes, but that is not necessarily true. I feel I am having to repeat myself to you. There are various reasons why the judge might not allow the testimony of an expert to be introduced. Those reasons are not always fair, nor are they likely to be corrected later. It's rare that a defendant will ever be granted a new trial. A trial is expensive to carry out and very time intensive. The judge would have to make a really big blatant terrible error for there to be a new trial. It's not just that. What you are asking for would put all the information control in the hands of the defense lawyer. The jury would have no way of getting information beneficial to the defendant that was not presented by the defense lawyer. Keep in mind many defendants do not have the money to hire good lawyers, or the defense lawyer may not be the most competent. It seems you keep making all sorts of assumptions, that everything will somehow work out all right, if we rely entirely on the defense attorney and judge to be the only ones who decide what information the jury gets. In my opinion, in that sort of situation, that is NOT the jury making the decision. I could convince a person of anything with limited and controlled information, if that was all you were allowed to hear about the topic. That's not really free agency to come to an independent decision.
It seems you are the one making assumptions. That most judges and defense attorneys are incompetent or biased, for one. Here's an idea for yourosecutors are paid at the same scale as Public Defenders or slightly less. The whole idea behind an adversarial system is that either side is able to rebut the other. In gathering evidence on his own, the juror denied the rights of both the defendant and the people in this case.
No, once again it is you who are making the assumptions, that it is cut and dry, for one. The point is, you are expecting us to rely on the opinions of the judge and defense attorney. Keep in mind the type of argument you are making here could also be used to argue against the need for having a jury in the first place. You seem to be is assuming it is obvious exactly what evidence should be presented to the jury, but there are many situations where that it is not the case. It's not merely just an issue of incompetence and bias, although those are considerations.
Keep in mind that in many cases the defendants themselves do not have the capability of gathering evidence. They may be held in jail, or simply not very skilled and adept at doing that sort of thing (something extremely common in the normal population). The jury's ability to choose is only as good as the information that have, or the information someone else decided to give them. When the jury is blocked from access to information, it brings into question whether it is really and truly only just the jury making the choice. Imagine if I made a "determination" about you based on someone else telling me something about you who really hated you. Then stupid people claimed that my determination about you was fair because I am an unbiased person. You totally see the problem here, don't you?
I guess that's why private detectives exist. Who limits juries' access to information? They are presented with the facts considered germane by the prosecution and defense. You're totally ignoring the idea of the defense having an opportunity to rebut the prosecution here.