BS: Inquest verdicts

Subject: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Mar 13 - 02:50 AM

One often reads in the report of an inquest that the Coroner informed the jury that he would not accept a certain verdict, or even that only certain verdicts can be considered. I have always found this puzzling.

In doing this, is he not pre-empting or arrogating a function which rightly belongs to the jury? Suppose the jury nevertheless feels that this is the verdict which the evidence they have heard points to and so that it is the verdict they wish to return? What would happen if they returned and told the Coroner this? If he then refused to accept it and they replied that they therefore felt unable to return a verdict at all, what then? How far do the Coroner's powers in determining a verdict in fact extend? And if they are to prevail over the opinions of the jury, why have a jury at all?

~MichaeL~

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 02 Mar 13 - 03:28 AM

My understanding, based on having to be informed of rule 43 decisions concerning various hospital deaths is that the coroner can say that no evidence has been submitted that would support x outcome or that if y evidence is seen as valid by the jury then z outcome cannot be true.

Judges give similar instructions to juries but perhaps with a different style in approach.

I suppose to a lay person on a jury this could sound like an instruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 08:26 AM

But juries are not bound to follow the judge's instructions, are they? I even remember the report of one trial in which the judge directed the jury to return a Not Guilty verdict and one of them refused point blank to do so. So, I ask again, what if an inquest jury, who are supposed, are they not, to be those who consider the evidence, differ with the coroner as to which direction that evidence points. What can the Coroner do, if he says "I will not accept a verdict of Unlawful Killing", and the jury comes back and says, "From the evidence we heard, Unlawful Killing is what it appears to us to have been"?

What then?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 08:40 AM

... the coroner can say that no evidence has been submitted that would support x outcome or that if y evidence is seen as valid by the jury then z outcome cannot ...
.,,.
To clarify my point: is it the function of the coroner to decide what outcome the evidence submitted can or cannot support? Surely that is the jury's function?

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: Megan L
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 09:48 AM

the coroners and justice act 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 10:06 AM

Many thanks for link, Megan. Can you, or anyone, give me any guidance as to where I should click within it to find the answers to my queries?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: Megan L
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 10:14 AM

Sorry Lad/Lass I was looking for something else when i spotted it just had a quick look it seemed to be the officail act they work to.

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 10:51 AM

This may be of help.

http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/england-factsheets/inquests

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 11:11 AM

As I have always understood the reasoning, there is a recognition that some cases involve enough public interest and emotion, that it may be difficult to find a totally unbiased jury.
(Note the American trial of O.J. Simpson, where at least 2 jurors admitted later that they intended from the beginning to find him "not guilty", despite overwhelming evidence.)

I suppose Michael, that what is going on is a system of checks & balances to allow the coroner's 'expert' opinion to counter poor understanding or prejudice in the jury.

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 12:32 PM

The GMC ethical guidance for doctors gives good advice on lay understanding of complicated yet emotive issues, death being a prime example. The guidance points out that legal definitions of causes of death and medical assumptions are different. The role of the coroner is to ensure juries make decisions pertinent to the facts and situation. This is demonstrated by instructions to the jury. By issuing instructions the coroner ensures the decision of the jury is based on facts or lack of, and that those facts are pertinent.

I suppose saying a coroner has influence is the same as acknowledging the clerk of a magistrate court has influence on the bench members. I am not a professional clinician so I need advice on technical matters but as a regulator (not the regulator... I am one of many making decisions in the name of) I am content that my judgement is mine and I stand by it. Similar situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 02:53 PM

But juries are not bound to follow the judge's instructions, are they? I even remember the report of one trial in which the judge directed the jury to return a Not Guilty verdict and one of them refused point blank to do so.

MGM, different jurisdictions have different rules. I don't know what jurisdiction you are in and inquiring about. BUT . . .

I spent 36 years working as an Official Court Reporter for the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. So what I say in this post is heavily based on my experience of US federal procedure, and then to a lesser degree on what I have understood along the way about the rules in the Indiana and some other state courts.

In the US, the various states and also the federal law provide differently for the function of the jury. In the Judge's orientation of the jury at the beginning of their service and then in the Instructions to the Jury at the end of a trial, it was always made clear and explicit that the jury MUST follow the Judge's instructions on the law. Note, "on the law".

When a civil jury goes wildly wrong on the law as they had been instructed, my recollection is that the Judge may set the verdict aside on his own motion. The other party may, of course, appeal his ruling to the relevant appellate court.

If they go way high on the amount of judgment, the losing party may request a ruling non obstante veredicto, or "notwithstanding the verdict", asking the Judge to cut the amount back to an amount which could be justified by the evidence presented. If he does, of course that ruling is appealable also.

I'm unable express an informed opinion on the propriety of a ruling in a Coroner's trial in any jurisdiction, of course, because my education and career experience have not touched on that sort of forum. I can only say that I suspect that the Coroner knows his powers and duties. I must rely on the legal presumption that a public officer will do his duty, which we all know is not always true in the real world.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Inquest verdicts
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 03:05 PM

Many thanks, Uncle Dave. My question[s] related in fact to usage in the UK.

~M~