Thanks for the interesting interview. In my view, judges should warn juries about websites, Facebook, Twitter, etc., when they emphasise only considering the evidence brought. When I did jury service we found the defendant guilty but sentencing was delayed, so we never heard the outcome. I felt slightly cheated. Emailing jurors the result would surely enhance the system’s credibility. I also found the process massively inefficient in terms of court time vs. waiting time for jurors.
They can if they are just reporting the course of the trial (unless the judge of course has banned reporting) but if they intend to make any judgment on the evidence before the trial has concluded they should not as a Follower might be or know a juror and thus the verdict could potentially be influenced - justice must be seen to be done. Anthony
Thanks for the interesting interview. In my view, judges should warn juries about websites, Facebook, Twitter, etc., when they emphasise only considering the evidence brought. When I did jury service we found the defendant guilty but sentencing was delayed, so we never heard the outcome. I felt slightly cheated. Emailing jurors the result would surely enhance the system’s credibility. I also found the process massively inefficient in terms of court time vs. waiting time for jurors.
Lewishamexplorer 1 year ago
Thanks. Very interesting. What are your thoughts on reporters now being allowed to tweet from the courts?
camponwater 1 year ago
@camponwater
They can if they are just reporting the course of the trial (unless the judge of course has banned reporting) but if they intend to make any judgment on the evidence before the trial has concluded they should not as a Follower might be or know a juror and thus the verdict could potentially be influenced - justice must be seen to be done. Anthony
KerseysMediaTV 1 year ago