News JDB Trial

[justdave]

The DDP will dump it. They’ve had two cracks and one non guilty verdict. It costs money so they’ll give a big nope to that.
Not an expert at all, just an opinion based on a past, shitty job.

 

[Slackboy72]

Not guilty on one charge. Hung on 5 charges.
One wonders if the prosecution will drag this along further.

 

[Exsilium]

If the DPP take this to a third trial, it would be a shocking waste of time and resources.

Two trials, two hung jury’s and one not guilty verdict on one single charge. It’s time to move on, if they couldnt convince a jury with what they have, what could they possibly look to achieve in the third round.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Will be interesting if he goes after the NRL now , considering they brought in the NFSD rule due to his issue.

I had a think about this... from an NRL perspective...

This is possibly a "good" result for the NRL.

If he was found Not guilty on all counts, there would be potential claim by De Belin against them for unlawful stand down - challenging the NFSD policy which they tried to test a while ago etc etc. Ie I reckon JDB could have had a legitimate & Strong case against them. He would also possibly could have had court costs re-imbursed by the prosecution to fund it.

Without a verdict reached twice now, case withdrawn.... I think the NRL have more of a stronger position on their NFSD policy. Ie - JDB has not been proven innocent of charges. And that JDB's financial position wouldn't be strong - I doubt this will be an option for him even if he wanted to. The NRL will be able to stand by their policy, and continue to do so... They've won the "PR" agenda..

 

[Generalzod]

What was the make up of the jury?

 

[BunniesMan]

If the DPP take this to a third trial, it would be a shocking waste of time and resources.

Two trials, two hung jury’s and one not guilty verdict on one single charge. It’s time to move on, if they couldnt convince a jury with what they have, what could they possibly look to achieve in the third round.

The juries have been hung, they haven't been convinced as a whole in either direction. These things come down to 12 individuals and the strength of the specific personalities. Leaders and followers. They get a different group of 12 and they can hope for a dynamic that suits them better. If say the mood of the room is 10-2 for guilt, it comes down to how stubborn those 2 are. Many people will come across to the majority. Or even

A jury is often made up of just 1 or 2 people on either side advocating, and the rest just listening and following. One persuasive person can win people over.

In the US I have heard of single murder trials being run 7 times over 20 years.

As long as the jury isn't unanimous for innocence a prosecutor can always say there is a reasonable case to be made again.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Twice it’s gone to trial and twice they couldn’t come to a conclusion, how will the third trial rectify this.

Who knows...

First thought in my head is that the prosecution (accuser) will need to fund it.... that will be a huge factor in whether they go ahead... The DPP may intervene but I'm not sure how that would work, if they can etc.

And while not coming into legal play - De Belin has now has had over 2 years of charges hanging over his head, 2 trials, being stood down indefinitely from the governing body of his sport (with a "retrospective policy), a massive financial drain in legal costs, and all the media attention that this has brought....

That's not a reason to make a decision on a re-trial or not - but to me - that's been a huge punishment in itself for someone who has - to now - not been proven guilty of anything in a court of law.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Another trial is just a waste of time
Surely the prosecution has to concede there isn’t enough evidence for a jury to reach a unanimous verdict

 

[mxlegend99]

I don't understand how a single jury being unable to reach a unanimous decision isn't automatically reasonable doubt.

With Haynes first trial or these two by JDB. Before these I havent really followed a trial that had a hung jury. If they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt though shouldn't the evidence presented have the jury all accept it and agree? I automatically have doubts over the next jury reaching a different decision due to the first one being undecided.

I dunno maybe I watch too many movies to think reasonable doubt is actually an important part of a trial. I always thought it was preferable that a guilty person get away with a crime than an innocent one pay for a crime. But here it just feels like they only care about an outcome even if it's the wrong one.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

What was the make up of the jury?

All I know is 8 x men, 4 x women. Was in one of the news stories posted earlier in the thread..

 

[Fufu Andronez]

All I know is 8 x men, 4 x women. Was in one of the news stories posted earlier in the thread..

Who gets to select the jury?

The judge, the defence or the prosecution?

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Who gets to select the jury?

The judge, the defence or the prosecution?

There's a selection process that involves both the defence and the prosecution... they both have to agree on jurors to be included in the trial.

Re the Judge, Im fairly sure they presides over the process without influencing - making sure the process is followed legally etc.

 

[Slackboy72]

Who gets to select the jury?

The judge, the defence or the prosecution?

Jury selection is usually first jurors get briefed on duties.
Then jurors get a chance to be excused.
They then state why and judge allows or disallows it.
Then Jurors get selected at random.
Defence and prosecution get a chance to say no to a limited number of jurors.
You can imagine the defence would be saying no to women jurors.

 

[Fufu Andronez]

You can imagine the defence would be saying no to women jurors.

yeah hence my question. An 8-4 male to female split seems alot better for one side over the other..

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

yeah hence my question. An 8-4 male to female split seems alot better for one side over the other..

Not completely...

What if the woman has a son (sons) the same age as Jack..
What if a Man has a daughter (daughters) the same age as the accuser..
What if a Woman is the only girl in the family with multiple brothers...
What if a Man is the only boy on the family with multiple sisters

It's the whole profile of a person that is judged during the jury selection process for cases with serious charges pending like this. Rather than simple gender balance on the jury.

 

[nick87]

Terrible situation for all concerned
I too find it fascinating that the jury was able to find him not guilty on the one count but there was enough there on the other counts for them to be unable to agree

The sad result of this is either a victim will now have to go through another trial to find justice, or simply will have to come to terms with her attacker getting away with it

or a falsely accused man will continue to have his life out on hold to defend himself or the charges are dropped and with no “not guilty” verdict to lean on, his reputation will forever be sullied

either way, someone is getting a very raw deal

 

[Fufu Andronez]

Not completely...

What if the woman has a son (sons) the same age as Jack..
What if a Man has a daughter (daughters) the same age as the accuser..
What if a Woman is the only girl in the family with multiple brothers...
What if a Man is the only boy on the family with multiple sisters

It's the whole profile of a person that is judged during the jury selection process for cases with serious charges pending like this. Rather than simple gender balance on the jury.

was just looking at it generally not forensically

 

[The_Frog]

Will be interesting if he goes after the NRL now , considering they brought in the NFSD rule due to his issue.

He went after them before and lost.

 

[The_Frog]

I don't understand how a single jury being unable to reach a unanimous decision isn't automatically reasonable doubt.

Some jurors had reasonable doubt, while others didn't.

 

[BennyV]

I had a think about this... from an NRL perspective...

This is possibly a "good" result for the NRL.

If he was found Not guilty on all counts, there would be potential claim by De Belin against them for unlawful stand down - challenging the NFSD policy which they tried to test a while ago etc etc. Ie I reckon JDB could have had a legitimate & Strong case against them. He would also possibly could have had court costs re-imbursed by the prosecution to fund it.

Without a verdict reached twice now, case withdrawn.... I think the NRL have more of a stronger position on their NFSD policy. Ie - JDB has not been proven innocent of charges. And that JDB's financial position wouldn't be strong - I doubt this will be an option for him even if he wanted to. The NRL will be able to stand by their policy, and continue to do so... They've won the "PR" agenda..

Seen a few claims that Jack could/should go after the NRL in the event of a not guilty plea but I can’t figure out how or on what grounds.
He was paid in full.
He was given the presumption of innocence/No Fault.
He challenged it at the Supreme Court and was unsuccessful.
The NFSD policy was about keeping these extreme negative cases out of headlines to prevent further damage to NRL, and they’ve proven that they do cop it financially when the game is brought into disrepute.

So what would he be going after them for? And what would he gain? Genuine question.