The jury has retired ......

I’ve been on a jury. GBH. It looked like an obvious case of guilty but the way the defence laid out their case put the whole thing in doubt.

Until, that is, the accused decided to instruct his council to tell us that he felt that his previous 22 convictions for GBH should not influence our decision. We’d known nothing about that because it was inadmissible. Beyond reasonable doubt...

 

I agree with that however I would argue that the delay in trial wasn't in this case due to a broken legal system but simply due to Joey Barton being a famous football manager. It's the only reason it was scheduled for the quiet period in football so that his trial for assault didn't impact his job. I guarantee that if I was charged with assault the court wouldn't set a date for in a year when work is quiet.

Obviously there have been delays after that which are unrelated but the original delays were all solely down to his profession and who he is which in my opinion is bang out of order as like you said, it gives a much higher chance of walking away a free man

 

Surely the same can be said of anyone's evidence. They are only going to remember the dramatic incident not unrelated trivialities.

 

If it w

This

 

The original court date was knocked on a few months due to ‘all’ the major witnesses working in football. But the vast majority of the delay was ‘normal’. You’ll note that the rearranged date is during the season, and is as quick as it could have been rearranged for.

If you ask anyone working in courts you’ll find that a wait for trial of 2 years isn’t a rarity.

edit : I appreciate they’re slightly more complex, but read this morning that county lines cases often take 3-4 years to get to court.

 

Yes, and that’s why the evidence of a single eyewitness is often insufficient to secure a conviction.

 

And he tried to make a quick get away, why?

 

Late for a needle-work class. I rest my case.

 

It was a rotten verdict and taken very much against the head on the reported evidence.

Counsel can quickly assess winners and losers, the cases they should get home and those where the punter has a run.

This was clearly a winner, pretty much nailed nailed on and yours to lose - eye-witness, causation of injury, Barton only person present at relevant time, intertwining threads of direct and circumstantial evidence.

The result doesn't always go the way it should and it shouldn't always be a case of blaming counsel when it doesn't. I've had a few cases over my career when the case went perfectly only for the verdict to go against me for reasons I could not and will not ever be able to fathom.

It happens. Often in celebrity cases too. Gerrard, Gascoigne, Stokes etc.

I am curious to know what, if anything, the jury heard of Barton's character which must have been subject to application by the Crown. It would appear it was not permitted to be adduced.

Other slightly odd aspect is, in such a short case, the discharge of 2 jurors.

Notwithstanding today's events, I am still a massive supporter of the jury system and in the overwhelming majority of cases they get it right.

Not much consolation for Daniel Stendel though.

 

You know what they say, 23rd time lucky.

 

Close friend who had excellent knowledge/experience !! of the criminal system often said that when it came to court appearances/parole hearings that 'demeanour is everything' - what none of us know is how Stendel/Barton and witnesses presented to the court.

Do barristers/solicitors 'coach' their clients not only in what they say but also how they say it?

 

Remember too, Daniel was having to answer through an interpreter, that is a disadvantage.

 

He’s that experienced at it he probably doesn’t need coaching anymore. Crazy but allows him to do it again to someone else again. Allegedly of course.

 

I know the British legal system is inherently corrupt but ….dear me. Poor.

 

Strictly no coaching allowed re what to say.

When defending you work with the defendant’s instructions as to what happened which will be reduced to a proof of evidence from which the vital elements will distilled into the Defence Case Statement which is then served on the Crown and Court.

When prosecuting you work from witness statements.
When I started out the first you would see of a witness to be called for the Prosecution would be when they stepped into the witness box in court.
Nowadays we can STWAC (speaking to witnesses at court) them which involves introducing yourself to them in the witness room, ensuring they have read and are happy with their statement and outlining in very general terms what the issues are likely to be.

Ask them to speak the truth and tell the jury what happened. If not sure of a question, to ask for clarification and remain calm, those kind of things.

Whether Pros or Defence it helps if the witness comes across well and it goes without saying that you don’t want your hot headed defendant kicking off under fire in front of the jury.

 

This post is spot on

Post in thread 'Barton innocent' https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/barton-innocent.1566223/post-35068049