Google me: Fame, race and sex ... reasons to disagree

By JULIET ROWAN


Desperation for a cigarette and desire to watch Coronation Street made jurors in a rape trial ready to agree to a guilty verdict, one of them, told MPs last week.

Trevor Ansley said the jury on which he served was hung because he refused to side with "11 irrational jurors".

He was giving evidence to a parliamentary law and order select committee hearing on the Criminal Procedure Bill that would allow juries to return verdicts with one dissenting vote.

At present, unanimous verdicts are required.

No one wants to believe that smoking and soap operas could influence a jury to make a decision, but star power certainly holds sway.

A prime example is the 1944 trial of Charlie Chaplin for sexual misconduct with a minor, which pops up in a Google search for "hung juries".

The actor, says Anecdotage, was "famed for his penchant for deflowering young virgins".

"One member of the star-struck jury absurdly claimed that Chaplin could not possibly be guilty because, as an artist, he would never have had sex on his mind.

"Another juror was somewhat more practical: she brought pictures of her 14-year old daughter to the trial, hoping Charlie would be interested," the site says.

Chaplin was acquitted.

So was O. J. Simpson in his nine-month trial for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.

Jurors stayed for the duration of the trial at the Hotel Intercontinental in downtown Los Angeles .

O. J.'s trial also raised questions about whether a minority jury would convict a black celebrity with the evidence stacked against him, CrimeLibrary.com reminds.

Like ethnicity, gender can determine jury dynamics.

In the book Hung Jury, a female juror describes sinister pressuring by male counterparts during a high-profile seven-month murder trial in Beverley Hills in 1993 (Tempress).

Emotion also comes into it.

A court case to find the rightful owner of a $4 million lottery ticket ended in mis-trial in Boston last month after four days of hostile deliberations by the jury.

Jury members declared themselves "hopelessly deadlocked".

The man claiming to be the ticket owner sued a store clerk who cashed the winning ticket after it was thrown away.

The Boston Herald website reported that 10 of the 14 jurors believed the man and gave him sympathy hugs after the mis-trial.

An American report, Why Do Hung Juries Hang?, gives other reasons juries find it difficult to reach agreement.

It says quality of evidence, rather than quantity and trial length, increases the likelihood of a hung jury.

It suggests three measures to improve the problem:

* Better preparation of evidence by prosecutors and defence lawyers.

* Better tools to help jurors understand evidence and the law, such as permitting them to take notes and question witnesses.

* Better guidance for jurors on how to engage in productive deliberations.