[Puffer Fish]

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
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-27/ ... /101583486

[Fasces]

You're very scared of being arrested for rape. Why?

[Puffer Fish]

Rape is not really the issue. The issue is that a judge was preventing a jury from being able to read an argument about the issue they were deciding. Even despite the fact that argument was not about the specific case.

Next time I hear "Well, a jury will decide", ask yourself whether that jury was prevented from hearing about or reading something relevant to the case.
Isn't it worrying that a jury is not even allowed to do research into the issue relevant to the case? Imagine if a case hinged on expert testimony about forensics, and the jury is not allowed to read any textbooks about how forensics work.
They have to either rely on common sense they already know, or whatever information is presented to them in the court, so in many cases they'll just have to take the word of an expert without being able to learn anything new to try to verify it.

[pugsville]

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
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-27/ ... /101583486

It's the law. The judge had little choice It does not matter what the paper said. Juries is supposed to hear the evidence and make a decision massed on that evidence. They are not meant to talk about it others, or do research. They are not meant to access any information outside what is presented in the court case itself.

The Jury was repeatedly warned about this.

[ness31]

You know the saying, “case by case basis”? That’s what a court case is, a deliberation of facts without external influences.

You’re not a dummy, you know this

[ckaihatsu]

The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_A ... nstitution

[pugsville]

[quote="ckaihatsu"][/quote]

This was Australia.

[ckaihatsu]

This was Australia.

G'day to you, too, PV -- ! (grin)

*Every* nation-state has their own 'Supreme Court' these days....


'Statements are disturbing': SC directs 3 states to take action against hate speech

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/s ... 55655.html


Supreme Court: Act against hate speeches without waiting for complaint

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... t-8223940/

[Truth To Power]

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.

Those falsely accused might not consider it quite so "unhelpful"...

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.

That seems rather odd. If there is any credible evidence of such activity, he is exposed as a liar; but if there isn't...

[ness31]

I hope I’m not making this up, I’m just recalling some vague memories of reports when this first broke. Apparently she had bruising and she was found in a disheveled state; like her dress was pulled up or something..

[Truth To Power]

I hope I’m not making this up, I’m just recalling some vague memories of reports when this first broke. Apparently she had bruising and she was found in a disheveled state; like her dress was pulled up or something..

IME, that sounds just as much like the result of an altercation with another inebriated woman. If that's the main evidence that this rape occurred at all, an academic paper on the prevalence of false rape accusations sounds rather relevant.

[ness31]

They rocked up together, there’s no ambiguity there, but yes, he said she said is always difficult.

The juror is an idiot for getting caught.

[pugsville]

Rape is not really the issue. The issue is that a judge was preventing a jury from being able to read an argument about the issue they were deciding. Even despite the fact that argument was not about the specific case.

Next time I hear "Well, a jury will decide", ask yourself whether that jury was prevented from hearing about or reading something relevant to the case.
Isn't it worrying that a jury is not even allowed to do research into the issue relevant to the case? Imagine if a case hinged on expert testimony about forensics, and the jury is not allowed to read any textbooks about how forensics work.
They have to either rely on common sense they already know, or whatever information is presented to them in the court, so in many cases they'll just have to take the word of an expert without being able to learn anything new to try to verify it.

It's the Law. it not a matter of Judge desecration. You'd have to rewrite the laws about jury trails. It;snot something new,. It;s not judicial activism it simple application of existing laws of jury trails in Australia.

It;s up to the other side in the court case to present rebuttal of expert witnesses. It;s an adversarial system. The Jury role is reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented at the trail.

This is the way it has ALWAYS worked.

[pugsville]

If juries can do research and read papers in their deliberations, people can be convicted or acquitted on evidence and argument produced in secret.

The Jury trail is open court. Evidence and argument is made in public. In the court. The argument and evidence are presented. The accused hears and sees what evidence is used against them,

If someone is convicted on arguments and evidence made in secret which they have no knowledge of how is this fair?

[Puffer Fish]

If juries can do research and read papers in their deliberations, people can be convicted or acquitted on evidence and argument produced in secret.

The Jury trail is open court. Evidence and argument is made in public. In the court. The argument and evidence are presented. The accused hears and sees what evidence is used against them,

If someone is convicted on arguments and evidence made in secret which they have no knowledge of how is this fair?

It's understandable that the jury should not be exposed to evidence that is not presented during the open trial, but that is when the evidence involves that specific case. In this case the "evidence" did not involve in the specific case.

You have a point, but is it really fair to not allow the jury to read anything? The jury is really not the one actually making the decision and in control of the defendant's fate if they can only hear the arguments that both the defense lawyer brings up and the judge decides to allow to be shown to the jury.
I find it to be a concerning issue when the jury is not allowed to be given the agency to have free access to intellectual context to be able to make the decision. Maybe I am just very democratic, but the jury should be the one in control when it comes to being able to protect a defendant from conviction.

If I can make an analogy, it would be kind of like saying that a free democracy still exists if everyone can vote but the government completely controls all information and there is no free speech or independent free media.

[Puffer Fish]

Something else I am unhappy with is that the original title of this thread was "Jury was not allowed to read academic paper", but a moderator has changed it to "Jury was not allowed to breach jury rules", which totally obscures the problematic issue I was trying to point out.

Of course now it is too late to edit and I am unable to alter the first post now.

[pugsville]

It's understandable that the jury should not be exposed to evidence that is not presented during the open trial, but that is when the evidence involves that specific case. In this case the "evidence" did not involve in the specific case.

You have a point, but is it really fair to not allow the jury to read anything? The jury is really not the one actually making the decision and in control of the defendant's fate if they can only hear the arguments that both the defense lawyer brings up and the judge decides to allow to be shown to the jury.
I find it to be a concerning issue when the jury is not allowed to be given the agency to have free access to intellectual context to be able to make the decision. Maybe I am just very democratic, but the jury should be the one in control when it comes to being able to protect a defendant from conviction.

If I can make an analogy, it would be kind of like saying that a free democracy still exists if everyone can vote but the government completely controls all information and there is no free speech or independent free media.

Is just a fundamental to working of the adversarial/jury system with open courts.

To be convicted on evidence and argument presented in secret where the defense is unable to present counter argument is unjust, surely one had the right to hear evidence and argument hat one is found guilt or innocent on. Abd that counter evidence and argument is allowed to be heard.

It;s an adversarial system in which there is a defense and prosecution present arguments and evidence (note arguments and evidence) And argument or evidence is allowed to rebuttal by the opposing side.

If the Jury is accessing argument and evidence how is there any check and balances and the balance of such Evidence Argument with counter argument or evidence,. If one juror gets some particularity argument to sway the rest of the jury one way or another , without such agreement or evidence being in open court subject to reporting and rebuttal,

The System is the Jury decides of evidence and argument presented in open court. Where the other side hears can present counter argument and evidence. The arguments d evidence can be rebutted, it is presented openly and not in secret.

If eh evidence or argument can be appealed against if new evidence comes to light bringing them into question.

[Puffer Fish]

To be convicted on evidence and argument presented in secret where the defense is unable to present counter argument is unjust, surely one had the right to hear evidence and argument hat one is found guilt or innocent on. Abd that counter evidence and argument is allowed to be heard.

But that is not the case here. The academic study that the (female) judge did not want to allow the jury to see would obviously have helped protect the defendant from being convicted.

[Puffer Fish]

If the Jury is accessing argument and evidence how is there any check and balances and the balance of such Evidence Argument with counter argument or evidence,.

I think one big issue is that a judge would very probably not allow the information in this type of academic paper, or the argument that the study implied, to be admitted in a trial.

Does not seem fair to not be allowing an argument into the trial that might convince a rational jury not to convict.

Remember, the jury is free to bring up any arguments they want behind closed doors in the jury deliberation room. So I don't see how you can argue this was about an argument.

What it's about is the statistical information in that study, which supported an argument.

[pugsville]

But that is not the case here. The academic study that the (female) judge did not want to allow the jury to see would obviously have helped protect the defendant from being convicted.

But the principle still holds. If this is allowed where are the lines drawn? What is only studies that help the defense? But how is that judged if its;s in secret? People would be convicted on secret evidence if this was allowed to stand.

The principle is that all arguments and evidence is presented in open court and subject to rebuttal, defense or prosecution. The fairness system requires rules to make it so. These rule revolved for good reasons and just can't be waived at random. If this is allowed them no defendant woudl ever know what arguments and evidence they were convicted on.

WHY does the gender of the Judge matter?

It;s a fundamental rule of how the Jury system works and it was clear breach. ANY judge would have ruled the same. It's not a whim. But a fundamental breach of the system.

It would not have helped but would have been a fundamentally made the trail unfair. Two sides presenting their arguments and evidence in open court where can be countered and rebutted,

What if a juror gets hold of an academic paper that is discredited? A large number of studies may exists showing it to be false. Surely teh prosecution of defense should have teh right to present counter argument and evidence. It;s effectively expert testimony and should be subject to rebuttal. Trails should not come done to random secret readings of various jurors. How is there any way to know it's balanced?