Making Sense of the Evidence: Jury Deliberation and Common Sense

Abstract

This chapter explores in detail the nature and function of ‘‘common sense’’ in jury deliberations. In carrying out their task, jurors are instructed to rely solely on the evidence presented at trial—not their prior knowledge of the case, or their personal views about certain categories of people, and certainly not what they picked up on social media. To make sense of all the evidence, they bring together what Garfinkel called the “rules of everyday life” with the “rules of the official line,” treading a path between the judicial instructions about what they are supposed to do and what they as ordinary citizens think is appropriate. We use this framework to explore how juries in our study made sense of the evidence about railway stations in Sydney, the anticipated target of the attack, the behaviour of the accused in leaving his bag on the train and possible terrorist links with such an attack.