哇，窗口太小啦
请调整浏览器窗口大小或者请使用手机查看！
The second series will follow in the footsteps of the first series, by recreating a real case from the original court transcripts in front of a brand new jury. Having received the evidence, will the jury come to the same conclusion as in the original trial? And after they have deliberated, will the individual jurors feel they were swayed, or gave a true fair verdict?
The case examined this series is of a young mother who says she killed her boyfriend in self-defence, but is she telling the truth? A real-life murder trial is restaged - with actors - for a jury of 12 ordinary people. Will the jury agree with the verdict of the original trial?
After a final, surprising new piece of evidence from the defence, both sides present their closing arguments. The jurors retire to consider their verdict. Arguments break out, and the foreperson is forced to plead for calm. Can the deadlocked, bitterly opposed jurors find common ground and deliver justice? Conversely, there remains the possibility that they may fail to deliver a verdict at all.
The prosecution cross-examine the defendant, trying to demonstrate that the defendant is lying about the night of the murder. They present evidence of her previous violent behaviour and challenge her over the lies she told to police and emergency services about her boyfriend's death. Tempers flare in the jury room, as jurors increasingly disagree with each other. An argument leads to tears, and rival groups begin to accuse the others of failing to assess the evidence properly.
The jury are presented with evidence of the victim's previous violent behaviour - including CCTV footage from the night of the killing itself. Some jurors believe the defendant, and are convinced she is a victim of domestic abuse. But others suspect she is lying, and think the evidence doesn't fully add up. As the divide in the jury deepens, alliances and friendships begin to form.
A word-by-word restaging of a real-life murder trial, in which a young mother find herself in the dock after stabbing her boyfriend in the chest with a kitchen knife. She says it was self-defence - but the ultimate decision lies with the jury, made up of 12 local members of the public. Will they reach the same verdict as the original trial?
The third series will focus on the real-life case of two brothers, one aged just 14, who are charged with the murder of their stepdad. The siblings admit to stabbing their stepdad whilst he was sleeping, but the jury - made up of twelve members of the public - will have to decide whether it was a calculated act of revenge or an act of desperation.
The second series will follow in the footsteps of the first series, by recreating a real case from the original court transcripts in front of a brand new jury. Having received the evidence, will the jury come to the same conclusion as in the original trial? And after they have deliberated, will the individual jurors feel they were swayed, or gave a true fair verdict?
The case examined this series is of a young mother who says she killed her boyfriend in self-defence, but is she telling the truth? A real-life murder trial is restaged - with actors - for a jury of 12 ordinary people. Will the jury agree with the verdict of the original trial?
The British jury system – judgement by twelve of one's peers – is shrouded in secrecy, but does that only serve to cover up flaws in the system?
Juries are a cornerstone of British justice, but studies have suggested that up to a quarter of juries' verdicts may be susceptible to inaccuracies influenced by a range of factors beyond objective evidence, and that most jurors – ordinary people who are often in court for the first time - do not understand all the points of law they are supposed to be judging upon. The secrecy that surrounds jury verdicts – in the UK, they are forbidden from sharing their reasoning – means furthermore that it is impossible to check the soundness of the decision-making.
The Jury: Murder Trial will examine the jury system for the first time on British television by recreating an entire, real murder trial from the original transcripts in front of two randomly selected juries, neither of whom are aware of the other. Filmed over ten days, in a former courthouse in Essex, the series will take a forensic look at the inner workings of justice.
The two juries will be asked to judge on the real case of a man who admits he killed his wife, but whose defence maintains that he lost control, and is therefore not guilty of murder. Actors will recreate the trial in front of the two juries, who will watch unaware of each other, from specially built separate compartments in the courtroom. What will the two juries decide, and why? Will they come to the same conclusion from the exact same evidence presented in the same way or will other factors play a part in their decision? How well will they follow the complexities of the law around loss of control? And after they have deliberated, will they even agree with each other's verdicts?
