First shown: Channel 4 Tuesday 26 August 2025 "The Jury: Murder Trial" was fascinating for me as probably it was for many with an interest in how justice works in England and Wales. I would opine that in the last year or two trial by jury; its history, implications, limitations and future have crossed the minds of many people who previously have not had a care how the guilty are found guilty and the innocent acquitted. At least that`s the theory. Indeed it has been a subject here over the last few weeks.
1. Those whose inner beliefs or inbuilt prejudices seemed to be a filter through which they digested the information presented to them.
2. Those who despite having an opportunity refused to consider only the evidence or apply reasoned analysis.
3. Those who seemed to be influenced by the most recent argument put to them and felt overwhelmed by the position of responsibility into which they were thrust.
The result was a compromise decision brought about by fearing to announce that they were a hung jury. I would suggest that if this trial had been under Scots law a verdict of "not proven" would have been a more likely result because that in effect would have reflected the reality. The final verdict of manslaughter did not appear to have been a logical ending to a finely balanced argument. It was compromise that in our English legal system was like trying to square a circle. That justice was done and seen to be done is a moot point. The stark contrast between the guilty group and the acquitters underscores how verdicts can diverge despite identical evidence simply due to personality clashes, emotional biases or group dynamics. All 12 were startled when the judge told them that the verdict of the jury at the actual trial some time previously was guilty of murder. If ever there was cause to take a deep breath this was it. If ever there was "proof" of the capriciousness that is in effect "the jury system" and a clear argument for eg a judge and two assessors to decide on guilt or innocence this was it.
Missing from the production was any reference to the manner in which the foreman was chosen. As any magistrate will attest the quality and abilities of that individual who should control the parameters of the discussion and direct attention to vital areas of the evidence was IMHO an omission where realism was sacrificed for time considerations and/or more dramatic conversations or pieces to camera which seem to have been dominated by a young woman in pink and a retired chef. The programme brought into stark relief the disturbing situation when prosecution and defence counsel offer to the jury evidence from "experts" who have opposing opinions. Two decades or more ago when DNA statistics` analyses were in their infancy and thrown at jurors like tennis balls from an automatic server, opposing apparently authoritative "experts" served their opposite opinions to jurors, likening them to answers from a deity. Currently the Lucy Letby case is provoking considerable discord among experts who testified and those now being consulted by the defence working towards a retrial.
In sum the last part leaves viewers torn: empathising with everyday citizens attempting gravely serious legal work but also troubled by the system’s susceptibility to bias, spectacle and inconsistency.
