Liam martin Bird

places a jury under police protection for the duration of a trial), four jurors met up in their hotel’s restaurant. Banned from watching television and having consumed a few drinks, they used a Ouija board that one juror had smuggled in to contact the spirits of the Fullers and ask who murdered them. The answer led to the jury delivering a guilty verdict.

However, once the use of the Ouija board was revealed, the accused was granted a retrial and promptly found guilty – this time, based on earthly evidence.

TRIAL BY (SOCIAL) MEDIA

We often talk about the impact of media on the outcome of a high-profile case, but what about social media? In a 2011 case, jurors were asked to consider serious drug charges against eight defendants.

One of the jurors found a defendant’s email address during deliberations and reached out to her. This led to the two adding each other on Facebook, where they discussed several things about the case including other defendants. The level of this misconduct led to not only the conviction being overturned, but the juror being sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.

TRIAL BY THE BIBLE

The two cases above reflect poor judgement by one or a few errant jurors, but in the 2013 trial of Vicky Pryce, the entire jury’s behaviour was odd.

Pryce was accused (and eventually convicted) of perverting the course of justice after taking driving licence points for her then husband, former energy secretary Chris Huhne, who had been caught speeding years earlier.

The jury presented the judge with a list of questions. While reports vary over their exact wording, the questions were at once bizarre and ignorant of the justice process. In addition to asking

Once the use of the Ouija board was revealed, the accused was granted a retrial and promptly found guilty – this time, based on earthly evidence