It’s sometimes said that the jury model is the least worst system of justice available. Certainly in terms of public participation and, in theory, independence it provides important safeguards against governmental, police or judicial overreach. It also brings community standards and common sense in determining guilt or innocence. Fair trials are central to any democracy and juries comprised of ordinary members of the public are the hallmark of that. Mostly I agree but two things are going on at the moment which show the fragility in this theoretically fair and robust system.
When One Juror Won’t Budge
Lindsay Clancy, a 36-year-old Massachusetts woman is, at the time of writing, on trial for murdering her three young children. She does not deny killing them but says she was suffering from a psychosis which makes her not criminally responsible for her actions. The trial has gripped the United States and worldwide audiences and the jury have been out considering their verdict for over a week.
Last Thursday, that jury sent a note to the judge indicating that one jury member was locking their deliberations by not applying the law on reasonable doubt. I should say that this is my understanding of what is going on and certainly given the defence’s appeal to have a juror removed suggests I’m not far from the truth. However that pans out, and even whether it’s lawful remains to be seen but whatever the outcome it highlights an issue with jury law.
Inside the Jury Room
Channel 4’s The Jury is currently airing its third series. Given that in the UK (and I believe in most if not all other jurisdictions) jury deliberations are secret and can never be revealed, this programme is the closest we’ll ever get to understanding the dynamics within jury rooms unless of course we’ve served as jurors ourselves.
In these series we see real members of the public taking on the role of a jury in the reenactment of a real trial. What we see almost from the very beginning is the force of personality, biases and external pressures at play which then go on to skew the jury one way or another. In the first series there were two juries each oblivious of one another watching the “trial.” They came up with different verdicts based on the same facts.
The Jury: Unanimous or Majority?
In many countries, including the USA and Canada, juries must be unanimous in their verdicts. This means that if one jury member decides that they will rail against law and reason the trial will collapse. Unanimity is an important protection to ensure that only the guilty are convicted but it can also have other outcomes.
Juries are told that they must convict only if they are sure beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt. However, does that mean that the jury collectively are sure or that each and every member of the jury is individually sure? In some jurisdictions, including in the UK, majority verdicts are permitted in certain circumstances and we often see them particularly in long and complex trials. Majority verdicts can expedite jury deliberations if they are not all able to agree and this might be necessary especially is one juror is approaching the case differently from the others.
However, if the jury are doing their job properly the very fact that at least two of them do not believe that the prosecution has made their case it could be argued there is reasonable doubt and therefore an acquittal should follow.
Lessons from Twelve Angry Men
In the play, film and book Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose we see juror attrition played out vividly. One by one the jury moves from an eleven to one vote for a guilty verdict to them all agreeing on not guilty. Whilst this is fictional it does show not only the value of debate and challenge but also the vulnerability for some jury members to be browbeaten or to simply give up because they’ve “got better things to do.”
So what’s the verdict?
I have no answers for what makes a perfect jury system, free from biases and preconceptions where people take the role as seriously as they should do.
However, perhaps more transparency of how juries operate might be the answer to ensure fair and equitable justice, despite what uncomfortable truths that might reveal.
I originally wrote this for my weekly column in The Argus, published on Monday, 7 September 2026.
