do the cps know the vote of a hung jury

[sadman]

do the cps know how the jury voted in a hung jury

[Rights Fighter]

Unless a note was sent to the judge during deliberations with that information on it - it is unlikely the CPS would know what the voting ratio was/is.

What goes on in the jury room is supposed to stay in the jury room.

[lawlessone2009]

I am assuming that you're cutting yourself to bits and believing that the CPS are going to continue on to a retrial as the jury decision was around the 50/50 mark and that they believe that they can swing it the other way with a little re-run.

I don't believe that the prosecution should know but they might.

Their decision should not be based on winning or loosing but on what is in the publics interest. They've had a shot at 'winning/loosing' and they lost, they must now do what is in the publics interest (they of course should've done that the begin with) with regards to whether to raise fresh proceedings or let it lie.

I honestly would not stress yourself out until you know for certain there is going to be another trial.

If you already know for certain there is then please disregard me.

You're getting a very very very sick game played on you. You've been to hell and back already and they want to take you there again. Cruel sick barstewards in my opinion.

[Rights Fighter]

If it was 9/3 not guilty they would still take it back to court if they felt they would win next time. They may well have picked up some new 'evidence' or something might happened during the course of the trial they think they might be able to use to ensure a conviction. It is also down to the complainant. They would be asked if they want to continue. If they insist that would have a bearing on it too.

[lawlessone2009]

If it was 9/3 not guilty they would still take it back to court if they felt they would win next time. They may well have picked up some new 'evidence' or something might happened during the course of the trial they think they might be able to use to ensure a conviction. It is also down to the complainant. They would be asked if they want to continue. If they insist that would have a bearing on it too.

I don't doubt your sound and very knowledgeable information.

The taxpayer unfortunately has to continue paying the bill even though the prosecution have had a damned good shot at getting a guilty verdict with all the information and resources of the state at their fingertips. The 'victim' will be dragged out and put through it all again as will the defendant, meanwhile the solicitors/barristers/Police/judges etc get richer and richer.

Unless there has been a catastrophic failure in the process I would be of the opinion that there should be no further trials. It's quite disheartening that it is allowed to continue.

[Rights Fighter]

It's a double-edged sword. Many people who are found not guilty or have a hung jury ARE guilty as charged. That's the problem. Bu**ered if they do and bu**ered if they don't.....

[Boys don't cry]

Many people who are found not guilty or have a hung jury ARE guilty as charged.

Guilty to love your wife...

[Rights Fighter]

That doesn't make sense....

[Boys don't cry]

RF

I know it was just personal.
It is a fact that everywhere(or nearly) you go for ex:College,universities,job interviews...
They will ask you "Have you ever been charged with committing any crime or offense?"
I could do with my jobs but dreading the next time I will be ask this question.
Yes, I have been charged to love my wife too much...
Sometimes I really think the world is gone ...
Maybe I should be a shark or lion...
Or I should write selfish,mean,..

Back to the topic...

[Rights Fighter]

RF

Yes, I have been charged to love my wife too much...

Back to the topic...

Really? Is that on the charge sheet?

You were accused of something you deny that she said you did, and you were charged with that offence (were you charged or still on bail with no decision from CPS?)

You have not been accused or charged with loving your wife too much.

[Boys don't cry]

I know RF but sometimes this is how I feel like and I am sure some of the falsely accused are feeling the same way.

You believe,you respect,you love,you don't think about doing anything wrong...

I have been charged for what I have been accused of,that is the point.

Yes RF ,I admit you are right again.

Bless you.

[lawlessone2009]

The way I see it...

The prosecution presented their case to the best of their abilities. The defence defended their position to the best of their abilities.

If there's to be a re-run then both parties will be even better as foresight is a powerful thing and all that jazz...

I foresee a further stale mate. Unless their is some form of extreme new evidence available to the prosecution then I would actually hazard a guess that the defence are in as good a position as at the original trial.

I don't see over exposure in the media so the public aren't being tampered with any more than usual so it's not as if that will swing things in the prosecutions favour.


I really feel for you but I don't think you should be overly worried. Your stress levels must be through the roof so I can only hope you're getting some help from the doc (my next port of call!).

[Faith]

We must not forget that every jury is different

What was undecidable to one jury might not be to another...

[lawlessone2009]

We must not forget that every jury is different

What was undecidable to one jury might not be to another...

So....

If at first you do not succeed, try try again...........

That seems a little draconian considering the fact the prosecution would've been far far better prepared than the OP in the first instance and they still didn't manage to persuade the jury.

Maybe the jury was just not to their liking and they feel that by dragging the OP through it all again in front of a 'proper' jury they will get the verdict that they want.

What happens if they don't? Try AGAIN? Keep trying until eventually they succeed?

[Faith]

It's different for every case.

Juries are not robots, they are people from the public with different backgrounds, prejudices and experiences. It's inevitable that a different result between juries is possible.
As you say, the first trial has been a practise run for both sides. What sadman's barrister needs to ensure is that the case is put to this second jury better by the defense than the prosecution. They can use their experience of the previous trial to work on this