I've been called up three times, Stan, but the last two times got out of it. The first stint, about twenty-odd years ago, got me three cases: one involving an accusation of arson and the other two concerning possession with intent to supply narcotics.
On the arson case the accused was a disgruntled, lowly male employee of a company who it was alleged started a fire on work premises whilst doing a night shift. We the jury thought that he probably did it, but there was insufficient evidence to convict.
The accused in one of the possession trials changed his plea halfway through, so we were dismissed, but the other concerned a traveller whose camp was raided and he was found with a sizeable quantity of magic mushrooms which the prosecution alleged was too vast to be holding purely for personal use. Again, no evidence that he was supplying - although he probably was - so we couldn't convict. He had already pleaded guilty to possession.
Embarrassingly, as I was outside the court waiting to cross the road to go home, the accused had been picked up in a car by a mate and, as they passed by, recognised me as a juror that had just acquitted him. The car slowed down, he hung out of the window, and in full view of others bystanders, some of whom may well have been court officials, gave me the thumbs up and shouted "cheers mate!"
What struck me about my fellow jurors was that the younger members just wanted to have a laugh. The magic mushrooms were left with us as Exhibit A and they were messing about trying to open the bag and eat some, bringing about a sharp rebuke from the foreman and me. Meanwhile, some of the older members wanted to convict the traveller simply because of their prejudices towards travellers. One even went on a rant about not wanting his sort outside the school gates peddling that filth. Others had to press the point that you could only convict on evidence and not on personal prejudices or supposition.
To the extent that my experience is representative - which it probably isn't - I took away two thoughts: (1) that many cases are brought before the court without a sufficient case to answer, certainly insufficient evidence and poorly prosecuted, and (2) that many of the younger jurors are ill-equipped to take their duty seriously and are more likely to acquit, whilst the older generation are possibly more likely to convict on the basis of their own prejudice rather than fact.
A pretty sorry state of affairs.
