According to my mum: “if you even miss a single day they throw the entire jury out and have to restart the whole court case again so that the new jurors can hear all the evidence”. I feel that would make longer cases exponentially impractical.
I can’t find anything about this on the internet, other than for someone asking this question in America.
You must log in or register to comment.
It depends. I hurt my back during jury duty. I asked for some pain killers from one of the court clerks but eventually this news found it’s way to the magistrate who promptly gave us all the rest of the day off. Luckily I was fine so they didn’t need to do anything more drastic.
I love the “asked the court clerks for painkillers” xD The judge was probably stepping in to avoid a repeat of the episode where clerks gave the jury opiates.
Ty for your story. Interesting to see them that accommodating.
They might call in an alternate juror who went through jury selection and has heard the same evidence, but doesn’t participate in deliberations unless they replace an original juror.
[ Disclaimer: I’m an American Idiot although I assume reserve jurors are common practice for courts ]
Can confirm for the US at least, I was a backup juror a couple years ago in a rather dull civil case. It’s standard practice here to select 14 jurors so you have 12 plus two alternates. I sat and heard the whole case, then had lunch with the judge during deliberations where we chatted about how stupid the case was.
then had lunch with the judge during deliberations where we chatted about how stupid the case was.
I suspect they might see it as their duty to point out legal stupidity; if only just so that the jurors are not given a bad impression of the whole legal system.
I’m not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt, but it looks to me like they just continue with the remaining jurors:
JURY ACT 1977 - SECT 22 Continuation of trial or inquest on death or discharge of juror
Where in the course of any trial or coronial inquest any member of the jury dies or is discharged by the court or coroner under Part 7A, the jury shall be considered as remaining for all the purposes of that trial or inquest properly constituted if–
(a) in the case of criminal proceedings, the number of its members–
(i) is not reduced below 10,
(ii) is reduced below 10 but approval in writing is given to the reduced number of jurors by or on behalf of both the person prosecuting for the Crown and the accused or each of the accused, or
(iii) is reduced below 10 but not below 8 and the trial has been in progress for at least 2 months,
(b) in the case of civil proceedings, the number of its members is not reduced, in the case of a jury of 4, below 3 or, in the case of a jury of 12, below 8, or
(c) in the case of a coronial inquest, the number of its members is not reduced below 4,
and if the court or the coroner, as the case may be, orders that the trial or coronial inquest continue with a reduced number of jurors under Part 7A
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ja197791/s22.html
Interesting. I sounds like they might start with more than 10 jurors then, just in case.
Do they let a juror back in if they’re off sick for a day? I wonder what the threshold is?
sounds like they might start with more than 10 jurors then, just in case.
Standard number in criminal trials is 12, and the judge can choose to have up to an additional 3 as spares if they think it’s necessary. See here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ja197791/s19.html
Do they let a juror back in if they’re off sick for a day?
I believe they’d just postpone precedings until the juror is well (as maniacalmanicmania said was their experience). I’m pretty confident all jurors would have to hear all evidence.
