From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 16/08/2025 13:28, billy bookcase wrote: 
 > "Jethro_uk"  wrote in message 
 > news:107pp4i$1d7qn$32@dont-email.me... 
 >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 11:06:01 +0100, billy bookcase wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> "Jethro_uk"  wrote in message 
 >>> news:107pi8a$1d7qn$29@dont-email.me... 
 >>>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 20:29:18 +0100, billy bookcase wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
 >>>>> news:mg9b7tF2tvdU1@mid.individual.net... 
 >>>>>> [quoted text muted] 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Neverthelees it does make you wonder about the quality of the advice 
 >>>>> she was given, if only by the duty solicitor. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I think the fact she had a history of making inflammatory postings 
 >>>> would have been highlighted to her as undermining a "moment of madness" 
 >>>> defence. Whereas the acquitted ex councillor (presumably) either had no 
 >>>> history, or was smarter in making sure he didn't leave a trail similar 
 >>>> behaviour in his wake. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Also, despite the rhetoric, I suspect she knew that 12 people on a jury 
 >>>> would not "back her". 
 >>> 
 >>> She wouldn't need 12. Only 3 
 >> 
 >> For a mistrial ? 
 > 
 > Er yes. 
 >> 
 >> You are aware that failing to reach a verdict is not "Not guilty" ? 
 > 
 > Er yes. 
  
 No, it's not a mistrial, which implies some substantial procedural 
 irregularity, but an inconclusive trial where the normal remedy is a 
 retrial before a fresh jury. 
 > It isn't "guilty" though either, is it ? 
  
 No, it's neither. 
  
 But it's worth saying that hung juries occur very infrequently in the 
 UK, my research showing in just 0.7% of cases in 2008, more recent 
 statistics not being available. 
  
 Majority verdicts (at least 10-2)  occur in about 15% of cases. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)