In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
The first case I was on was two young lads accused of nicking old UK
motorbikes and stripping them for spares to sell on. I asked quite a few
questions. ;-) After being found guilty, one did a runner from the court.

A friend got pulled on to a drugs trial about 20 years ago
that was expected to take a while and he wasn't best pleased.
In the event, it was over in an hour, because the "evidence"
had vanished.

The drug trial I was on was quite amazing. The defence consisted mainly of
'what ifs'. Which the prosecution very rarely challenged. I know it's the
prosecution's job to prove things, but if a defence is based on a 'fact'
surely it should be verifiable?

Another friend was called for jury service and couldn't go to
a job interview. They said they'd interview him after the case,
but they'd already offered the job to someone else by then.
They went bust a year later, so in retrospect, he was probably
lucky.

In some ways, using retired jurors makes sense. Not having to worry about
work and so on. I was lucky enough to work for a large company who saw it
as a civic duty. Could be very difficult for a smaller one.

--
*You know you're a redneck if your home has wheels and your car doesn't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.