General Chat

The Case of the Stinky Juror.

Something smelled fishy in the courtroom of Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Nancy Staffier-Holtz. In fact, it wasn't just in the courtroom. The smell pierced through even into the judge's lobby. Turned out, the smell was a juror -- the juror's body odor, to be precise. So the judge dismissed her. She explained on the record:

I just want the record to reflect, I guess, to be blunt, [the juror], for whatever reason, had some very bad, I guess to be blunt again, body odor, which was extremely strong, and I was able to detect in my lobby, as was the clerk, which is a personal matter for that potential juror, but for the fact that her personal problem was [of] such a magnitude that other jurors who had already been picked ... either by act or words had indicated discomfort with that problem.

One imagines a line-up of jurors with clothespins clipped over their noses. Nonetheless, the judge's decision to exclude the smelly juror left a bad taste in the mouth of the defendant. The defendant objected, noting that the excluded juror was of his same race. The judge stood by her decision, which she was was purely environmental:

My concern is not her background, but rather that I have [sixteen] jurors who are able to function. And given the strength of the body odor, I'm satisfied that the other jurors would be put at a distinct disadvantage in their efforts to concentrate. So I note your objection, but she has been excused.

The now olfactory-friendly trial continued and the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and other counts. He appealed, asserting that the trial judge's dismissal of the juror prejudiced his right to a fair trial. In a decision issued last week, Commonweath v. Young, the state Appeals Court affirmed his conviction. It found no evidence that the racial composition of the jury was unfair. The judge's decision to dismiss the juror because of B.O. was OK, the court said.

We hold that the judge's dismissal of the juror was not an abuse of her discretion. Here, the jury had not yet been sworn, and therefore, the judge had no duty to hold a hearing or find an extreme hardship. ... The judge made sufficient findings on the record regarding her concern that the juror's body odor would affect the ability of the other jurors to concentrate. Accordingly, the defendant's claim fails.

The moral of the case: Justice may be blind, but it retains a healthy sense of smell.

Must be a serious concern if the accused or people in the public gallery recognise you ? :-(

I also had a Jury Service notification about 10yrs ago.
I wasn't chosen on that case.

I read about it a few weeks later and I was really grateful to have escaped.
An elderly man, accused and found guilty of Institutional Sex Abuse.
All of his victims were young adults with varying degrees of learning difficulties.


I saw a documentary recently about a number of Jurors who are receiving treatment for PTSD.
The cases were extreme but, we tend to forget how difficult it must be for them.

Summoned once in the 80s, sworn in then at the last minute defendant changed his plea to guilty so jury not needed but invited to sit in to hear the sentencing etc. Drugs if I remember correctly, late 70s Gloucester.

Summoned three times - served twice, one trial at the Old Bailey. I found it very interesting.

I only know, personally, of one other person who has been called so think it rather odd that the few are summoned twice or more.
I believe everyone should do it regardless of employment status, if you're self employed or freelance you should tell the clerk and you will be put on a short case.

you would have been the stabilising influence GL
Choice of menu on those two days ?

I was called just a few weeks ago.
At 59yrs, I was probably one of the oldest members of the jury

Case was brought to court by the Procurator Fiscal but it should never have gone this far

It lasted 2 full day and it was ridiculous.
Unanimous Not Guilty!

My wife was summoned to be on the Jury of the inquest
of Roul Moat.

She could not attend, she was having an artificial knee fitted.

Yes and was called three weeks ago at the age of 75.

This one would have been my first in the High Court
but due to my illness I declined.

I got caught for this once, weeks of boredom and lawyers wrangling. If you are self employed big financial loss. If they give you an indemnity cert keep it carefully as it is the only evidence that you are excused in future.

People don t always lose their marbles as they get older as anybody who plays chess or bridge can tell you. then there are artists, musicians and authors doing fine in their old age eg Picasso.

The real reason for the age limit and why it has been increased is that older jurors have a much greater tendency to convict. As the law says "jury of his her peers" the defence will object to elderly Steptoe snr. when empanelling the jury.

OH yes the verdict. Not guilty even though the accused, a foreigner, had fled abroad and had been extradited to the UK.

I attended one in Cardiff - both alleged rape cases - both defendants found not guilty

The two I was on were at Newcastle combined courts. There are 20 courts busy in there.
Those on Jury service have to enter and leave the building at the rear via security personnel.

Yes, there is a lot of hanging around until chosen to form a Jury. They try everything from bankruptcy to murder in those courts. Some lasting only hours, some lasting weeks.

The Judge hears the trial through defence and prosecution barristers, then informs the Jury that they must retire and form a verdict., but he sums up the case as he sees it, but leaves the verdict to the Jury. I remember thinking "are we qualified"
Parts of one trial I found intimidating, but it was a violent case. There is a holding cell immediately below the dock. The Judges "take him down" follows his hearing a guilty verdict.

A colleague had to withdraw when she realised she knew one of the witnesses. He was the type of young man who would have called 'Hello, Miss' across the courtroom.
She told the Usher as soon as she was able, then the next day had to be held in isolation with one of the Matrons until the Judge called her to his Chambers. She said she felt as if she'd been sent to the headmaster's study!
Apparently the remaining jurors were put back into the 'pool' and different people selected. This was to prevent them from being unduly influenced.

Although Jurors are paid expenses, the allowance is less than they actually spend. Public transport costs are re-enbursed (sp) which is fine if there are good transport links, but not if there are numerous changes over a number of hours. They do get a car allowance if they can car-share which isn't always practical, but not otherwise. Even so, it doesn't necessarily fully cover parking costs or that of petrol.

David originally asked why there is an age limit. As we get older our concentration span does tend to lessen & there is a great chance we will have minor medical issues that need to be addressed e.g. the inability to sit in an uncomfortable chair for the required length of time, or a weak bladder.

My daughter was called when quite young.

I was called about 3 years ago and found it interesting, but once at the venue there was a lot of hanging around waiting to be allocated a court.

The case took a long time to be heard because it was through an interpreter, so every piece of evidence took twice as long, each day

We were sworn in fairly late in the day one day and after a short time, proceedings finished for that day.
The following day, when we reassembled, we were told that one of the jurors had declared that he sometimes went to the place being discussed in the case and so had been withdrawn from sitting.
A new juror was chosen and all the jurors had to be sworn in as a group, ie. the rest of us were sworn in again.

I had thought of it as an individual swearing in and hadn't considered that in relation to fellow jurors.

I'd willingly serve again, but don't expect to be called.

I was on two. The Police were present as witnesses on the second. A violent assault.

Some months after the second Jury service I received a letter stating I would not be summoned again.

You must attend, they summon you to serve. I tried to talk my way out of the first one, but the Clerk of the Court wouldn't hear of it.

So far, I've never been invited :-D
Not sure whether my belonging to the Workers Revolutionary Party in my youth has had any influence (boring and un-revolutionary by the way - on a par with attending MENSA meetings - yaaawn).

Or maybe it was my belonging to the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers .........(vaguely revolutionary - then swallowed up by the Transport & General Workers Union - at which point I left - how dare they call me a 'General Worker') :-P

Since then, I've been mainly employed by a County Council (Mrs Goody Two-Shoes) - but STILL they haven't called me :-S

As of the 01 December (2016) the upper age limit for jurors in England and Wales will be raised from 70 to 75.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/
jury-age-limit-to-be-raised-to-75-in-england-and-wales

And just when you thought you'd avoided it :-0

OH has done it twice. The second case was about 4 weeks long. Consequently the Judge has excused all the Jurors from further service. He's got an official bit of paper to prove it!!

I've done it just once 2 years ago. I'm over 70 now so wont get called again.

Anyone been summoned for Jury Service ? I've been on two.

Wonder why they have an age restriction on Jury members.