Kalender veröffentlichenDie Top 250 FilmeDie beliebtesten FilmeFilme nach Genre durchsuchenBeste KinokasseSpielzeiten und TicketsNachrichten aus dem FilmFilm im Rampenlicht Indiens
    Was läuft im Fernsehen und was kann ich streamen?Die Top 250 TV-SerienBeliebteste TV-SerienSerien nach Genre durchsuchenNachrichten im Fernsehen
    Was gibt es zu sehenAktuelle TrailerIMDb OriginalsIMDb-AuswahlIMDb SpotlightLeitfaden für FamilienunterhaltungIMDb-Podcasts
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAlle Ereignisse
    Heute geborenDie beliebtesten PromisPromi-News
    HilfecenterBereich für BeitragendeUmfragen
Für Branchenprofis
  • Sprache
  • Vollständig unterstützt
  • English (United States)
    Teilweise unterstützt
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Anmelden
  • Vollständig unterstützt
  • English (United States)
    Teilweise unterstützt
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
App verwenden
Episodenguide
  • Besetzung und Crew-Mitglieder
  • Benutzerrezensionen
IMDbPro

The Jury: Murder Trial

  • Miniserie
  • 2024–
  • 3 Std.
IMDb-BEWERTUNG
7,0/10
248
IHRE BEWERTUNG
The Jury: Murder Trial (2024)
Reality-TV

Wie sehr können wir unserem Justizsystem vertrauen? Dieses bahnbrechende Experiment verfolgt die Neuinszenierung eines realen Mordprozesses vor zwei Geschworenen aus normalen Menschen.Wie sehr können wir unserem Justizsystem vertrauen? Dieses bahnbrechende Experiment verfolgt die Neuinszenierung eines realen Mordprozesses vor zwei Geschworenen aus normalen Menschen.Wie sehr können wir unserem Justizsystem vertrauen? Dieses bahnbrechende Experiment verfolgt die Neuinszenierung eines realen Mordprozesses vor zwei Geschworenen aus normalen Menschen.

  • Stoffentwicklung
    • Ed Kellie
    • Harry Smyth
    • Will Stanbridge
  • Hauptbesetzung
    • Jordan Mifsud
    • Katie Sheridan
    • Caroline Gruber
  • Siehe Produktionsinformationen bei IMDbPro
  • IMDb-BEWERTUNG
    7,0/10
    248
    IHRE BEWERTUNG
    • Stoffentwicklung
      • Ed Kellie
      • Harry Smyth
      • Will Stanbridge
    • Hauptbesetzung
      • Jordan Mifsud
      • Katie Sheridan
      • Caroline Gruber
    • 5Benutzerrezensionen
    • 2Kritische Rezensionen
  • Siehe Produktionsinformationen bei IMDbPro
  • Siehe Produktionsinformationen bei IMDbPro
    • 1 BAFTA Award gewonnen
      • 3 wins total

    Episoden4

    Folgen durchsuchen
    1 Jahreszeit

    Fotos6

    Poster ansehen
    Poster ansehen
    Poster ansehen
    Poster ansehen
    Poster ansehen
    + 2
    Poster ansehen

    Topbesetzung26

    Ändern
    Jordan Mifsud
    Jordan Mifsud
    • Bradley Ryman
    Katie Sheridan
    Katie Sheridan
    • Helen Reisdale
    Caroline Gruber
    Caroline Gruber
    • Kimberley Smythson
    Harry Anton
    Harry Anton
    • P.C James Hilton
    Sam Alexander
    Sam Alexander
    • John Reisdale
    Natalie Grady
    • Annaliese Hartt
    Christopher Simpson
    Christopher Simpson
    • Xavier Ahmad QC
    Ellouise Shakespeare-Hart
    Ellouise Shakespeare-Hart
    • Jo Flixton
    Angus Kennedy
    Angus Kennedy
    • Dr. Walter Caxton
    Ben Dilloway
    Ben Dilloway
    • DS Michael Thorne
    Carrie Bunyan
    Carrie Bunyan
    • Harriet Reisdale
    Daphne Kouma
    Daphne Kouma
    • Steffi Leonetti
    Kate Kordel
    Kate Kordel
    • Lucy Harp
    James Allen
    • Judge Eberdale
    Edward Wolstenholme
    Edward Wolstenholme
    • Mr. Michael Day
    Riz Khan
    Riz Khan
    • Jury Member
    Lynette Edwards
    • Joan Romford
    Andrew Piper
    • Prosecution Barrister (Ryan Thomas)
    • Stoffentwicklung
      • Ed Kellie
      • Harry Smyth
      • Will Stanbridge
    • Komplette Besetzung und alle Crew-Mitglieder
    • Produktion, Einspielergebnisse & mehr bei IMDbPro

    Benutzerrezensionen5

    7,0248
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Empfohlene Bewertungen

    3mikeingram-03413

    Could be better

    I appreciate that the intention of this program was to determine whether two independent juries could come up with two different results. However, surely the experiment needed more control procedures to try and reduce (elimination not being possible) the impact of factors that would not be present within the original trial.

    What I felt was that the experiment showed how two groups of differing people could come up with different results based upon interaction that would not be present within the court and trial system.

    The fact that the people chose to go on a TV program, rather than the non optional reality of being put on jury duty, also shows that ego and playing to the camera were very present factors. I appreciate that the real pressure of being on jury duty could not be replicated, but the process and procedures could have been better simulated.

    For me it was an interesting experiment but value degraded to make it a more watchable program.
    6gilleliath

    tell us something we don't know

    Of course, C4 can never just show something trashy for entertainment, so this is therefore an 'experiment' supposedly showing how the dynamics of a jury work. Yet it is in two respects completely unrealistic. First, the juries were obviously not selected randomly but in accordance with 'BBC diversity'. Actually the white blokes included are middle-aged white van men, and the whole thing seems set up as a deliberate microcosm of the culture wars. And second, they may reproduce the words spoken in the real-life trial, but what they can't reproduce (of course) is the general impression made by the witnesses - and, as the jurors' comments make clear, *that is what they mainly go by*. Did the real defendant have such mother-me eyes? Did he burst into tears quite so much? We don't know. Yer man gives it his all, though, I must say that.

    Indeed it is clear that most people made up their minds pretty early on, and did this according to their existing prejudices. Two eps in, we haven't really seen any discussion, as such, at all; those who hold minority views are keeping quiet. Almost nothing that anybody has said - and least of all the barristers who are paid so much to present a case - has actually had any bearing on how it should be judged. Any fictional defence lawyer, Saul Goodman or Kim Wexler say, would rapidly have made mincemeat of the prosecution's feeble efforts. So if the show proves one thing, it is that people don't decide things on reason. But we already knew that...

    Curiously, and in contrast to TV whodunnits, there has been very little focus on the actual MO of the killing. Yet this seems of crucial importance. The guy, having already strangled the woman, and not sure if she is already dead, then finishes her off with a big club hammer that happens to be handy. Why reach for that at all, if the strangling was just 'loss of control'? And okay, he's a sort of blacksmith, but what is the hammer doing on the kitchen table? Nobody in the juries has spotted this anomaly. I suspect him of a pre-meditation that would invalidate the 'loss of control' defence - for whatever that was ever worth.

    ETA: no change in the last ep, in which the juries had to decide their verdicts: every single person went by their general impression of the guy and the case, as seen through the lens of their own previous experiences; not by the specific facts of the killing which were the only things relevant. Added to that, we saw those with minority views in both juries cave in fairly rapidly to the social pressure to agree with the others, in spite of having been apparently adamant in their original opinions. One or two of these seemed to feel they'd been cheated, when they realised there was another jury that had returned the contrary verdict and that therefore their own previous views were defensible. But they had no-one to blame but themselves and their lack of backbone.

    All in all it was pretty depressing, whether considered as illustrating how the jury system works or its wider implications about how beliefs form and spread in society. Interesting, but not exactly fun.
    2catkittenwoman

    Suspicious

    This, to me, seems to be false. Why are they wearing the same clothes for a week or more? They must be uncomfortable at least.

    There is a lack of real diversity in both juries and . They seem to have made their minds up at the beginning.

    The juries forgot that the defendant is an actor and took what he said and displayed emotionally as fact without questioning it. (Yes I know it's dramatised) WHY is there a lump hammer in the kitchen? The jury failed to question this at all. Most artists keep their equipment where they work. Not in the kitchen All in , disappointing. Could do better next time-if there is a next time!

    Mehr wie diese

    The Jury: Death on the Staircase
    7,5
    The Jury: Death on the Staircase
    Breathtaking
    7,6
    Breathtaking
    The British Airways Killer
    6,9
    The British Airways Killer
    24 Hours in Police Custody
    8,4
    24 Hours in Police Custody
    To Catch a Copper
    5,9
    To Catch a Copper
    Cold Summer
    7,4
    Cold Summer
    The Jury
    7,6
    The Jury
    Sarah Everard: The Search for Justice
    7,5
    Sarah Everard: The Search for Justice
    Scoop - Ein royales Interview
    6,5
    Scoop - Ein royales Interview
    Little Disasters
    7,1
    Little Disasters
    The Fortune Hotel
    7,2
    The Fortune Hotel
    The Jury
    6,7
    The Jury

    Handlung

    Ändern

    Wusstest du schon

    Ändern
    • Patzer
      In British courts, barristers do not typically wander around the court during proceedings in the same way as attorneys might do in American courtrooms. The layout and practices in courtrooms can vary between jurisdictions, but there are some general differences between the British and American legal systems.

      In the United Kingdom, barristers (advocates) usually address the court from a designated area, such as the bar table. They may move within this area but do not typically walk around the courtroom during the presentation of cases.

      In this presentation the barrister moved around the court room.

    Top-Auswahl

    Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
    Anmelden

    Details

    Ändern
    • Erscheinungsdatum
      • 26. Februar 2024 (Vereinigtes Königreich)
    • Herkunftsland
      • Vereinigtes Königreich
    • Offizieller Standort
      • Screendog
    • Sprache
      • Englisch
    • Drehorte
      • East Sussex, England(location)
    • Produktionsfirma
      • ScreenDog Productions
    • Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen

    Technische Daten

    Ändern
    • Laufzeit
      3 Stunden
    • Farbe
      • Color

    Zu dieser Seite beitragen

    Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
    • Erfahre mehr über das Beitragen
    Seite bearbeitenFolge hinzufügen

    Mehr entdecken

    Zuletzt angesehen

    Bitte aktiviere Browser-Cookies, um diese Funktion nutzen zu können. Weitere Informationen
    Hol dir die IMDb-App
    Melde dich an für Zugriff auf mehr InhalteMelde dich an für Zugriff auf mehr Inhalte
    Folge IMDb in den sozialen Netzwerken
    Hol dir die IMDb-App
    Für Android und iOS
    Hol dir die IMDb-App
    • Hilfe
    • Inhaltsverzeichnis
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • IMDb-Daten lizenzieren
    • Pressezimmer
    • Werbung
    • Jobs
    • Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen
    • Datenschutzrichtlinie
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, ein Amazon-Unternehmen

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.