 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
From the BBC re the Huhne/Pryce trial:
Among the questions the jury asked the judge was whether "a juror could reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it".
Oh to be a fly on the wall. But it seems the jury would be ideal members of STW
reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it
"He looks a bit dodgy. Guilty!"
If I ever get to do jury service ... 😀
Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit,Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, and Woppit
Ro5ey he's got a chain to change and the hippy capitalists to overcome.
Among the questions the jury asked the judge was whether "a juror could reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it".
That is rather special.
Ro5ey - MemberWoppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, Woppit,Woppit, Woppit, Woppit, and Woppit
Hi! I waved on my way past, BTW... 😀
Jury's been discharged, apparently, too much dithering. Marital coercion 2.0 starts next week.
"a juror could reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it".
The juror in question probably had left the iron on at home and wanted to get off before the rush hour.