Original subtitles

The deceased, Carlo Levetto, was about 65

and Shaun, the accused, about 20 years younger.

It was a loving relationship, a caring relationship.

20 years is a lot. It's a big age difference.

Different culture, different nationalities.

It'll take a lot of understanding and commitment

to keep a relationship like that happy.

Get your feet off the coffee table!

Shaun is not a very diplomatic person?

No, he is a very pig-headed person.

Shaun is saying that Carlo kept coming at me.

While he was juicing.

But this fight escalated to a physical altercation,

and Shaun Yang just hasn't stopped.

You can only push someone so far.

It's like a volcano. And when it erupts, it will erupt.

For me, they were trying to portray

that Shaun is like a little angry ant

that just explodes at the drop of a hat.

The direct cause of death was blunt force head and neck injury.

He's been bashed.

So, the Christian in me is thinking there needs to be justice.

The Crown says that it has established its case

beyond reasonable doubt,

and that you will find the accused guilty of manslaughter.

There are so many gaps in the evidence

that we say the prosecution has failed to prove to you

that Mr Yang is guilty of manslaughter

beyond reasonable doubt.

Both arguments are compelling.

But they delivered two different conclusions.

When a person is accused of a crime,

it's often the job of a jury to decide their fate.

But do juries always get it right?

To find out, for the first time in Australia,

we're following a jury through a criminal trial...

Shaun Yang did unlawfully kill Carlo Levetto.

..with actors restaging a real case word for word.

Do you think that the cause of death was strangulation

or attempted strangulation?

I think the cause of death here is obscure.

But, just as in a real court, the jurors are everyday people.

- That was hard to watch, huh? - Blimey.

We'll follow 12 jurors

as they work to decipher a baffling criminal trial.

He was so angry that then he grabbed him around the throat

just to finish him off, but you don't know.

Even if he contributed a little bit,

- it's still manslaughter. - Mmm.

And you're saying, "No it can't be Shaun, it can't be Shaun."

Well, who else was it then?

Will the jury convict an innocent man?

Hang on. He's supposed to convince us, right?

Or will they free one who is guilty?

I'm very unlikely to change my mind.

The jurors reveal their strengths and their prejudices.

I totally recognise that I do have a bias.

"Thou shalt not kill" really rings home.

I only had one opinion of criminals.

They're guilty. They're all liars.

Will our 12 jurors arrive at the same verdict

as the original trial?

How say you?

Is the accused guilty or not guilty?

- I swear by Almighty God... - That I will give...

- A true... - Verdict according...

To the evidence.

After seven days of hearing evidence,

today, the work of the trial is handed to the jury.

They'll be locked together in the deliberation room

to decide if Shaun Yang is guilty of manslaughter.

I think there are people in the group

that may have some prejudices,

but I don't know whether that's going to influence the decision.

I know I will do the right thing.

And I won't be swayed.

I'm just really interested in how this group of 12 people,

inclusive of me, is going to come up with a verdict.

It's just... It's very interesting.

I feel a little bit nervous

knowing that there's someone's life in the balance.

- Whoa. - Thank you.

Look at this decor.

Oh, my God.

This is where this experiment is exciting

because we're actually getting to see the real deliberations.

Judges don't get to see what happens in the jury room.

The barristers don't get to know what happens there.

Oh, you even brought your potato?

Today is the day when we're going to need it.

We need the potatoes, that's right. Good job.

Yeah.

It's a fantastic opportunity

to see and be that fly on the wall

and experience something that people aren't privileged to experience

in any other way.

- How are you, mate? - A bit emotional, I think.

Because I know that Shaun is suffering from depression.

Yeah, I feel for Shaun.

- Mmm. - Mmm.

Since I learnt that, I feel for him, yeah.

But I don't think we can take it into consideration

- in this case, right? - No.

The trial will not be over until they reach a unanimous verdict.

There's no set time for a jury to deliberate.

Some cases will require days of deliberation,

depending upon the nature of the charge,

the subject matter.

- You've got 10 kids, right? - Sorry?

- You've got 10 kids, right? - 10, yeah.

So this would be your dinner table.

- This is the exact same people. - Yeah. Pretty much.

Holy shit!

You're going to have some people

that will be very predisposed one way.

Other people might be very much the other way.

And then there's a bunch of us that I think are in the middle

that are seeking more information to help us make a decision.

Uh, hey, guys, the judge has sent us some instructions

- to help us start deliberations. - Good, because we're simple.

So, first of all, just your position -

Do you...do you think guilty or not guilty?

- I can't really answer it. - Audrey.

Not guilty.

- Mish. - Not guilty.

Mon.

Not guilty.

- Michael. - Not guilty.

Harrish.

- Not guilty. - Not guilty.

- Anya. - Not guilty.

- Tahi. - Not guilty.

- Kathy. - Not guilty.

- Craig. - Guilty.

Rose.

Guilty.

- Van. - Guilty.

And I'm not guilty.

OK.

It's Craig, it's Rose, and it's me.

And we're all sitting together. Isn't that funny?

Like it was planned, but it wasn't.

So, yeah, we all... We three voted guilty.

I wasn't Robinson Crusoe there,

so it's always good to have a teammate.

A 9-3 split means the jurors have some serious work ahead

to reach a unanimous verdict.

To just expect everyone to have the same opinion off the bat is crazy.

And of the people that did think Shaun was guilty,

that wasn't a surprise either.

It was immediately nine against three,

but that was nine in the same camp as I was.

So for once in my life, I was a majority.

I'm in the minority.

I'm thinking...

..this is bad. This is bad.

The judge has provided the jurors with a list of questions

to help them through their deliberations.

The first question is...

Or should we start with the guilty people?

Mmm.

Yeah, I think that's... I think that's a good idea.

- OK. - We're guilty.

Craig, has the prosecution proven beyond reasonable doubt

that the death of Mr Levetto was caused by an act of Mr Yang?

Yes.

- Any comments on that? - No. He's done his job.

He's proved that he's guilty.

And Rose, same?

Prosecution has done the job of proving that Yang did it.

Van?

From the evidence presented to me, convinced me that he's guilty.

I think today is going to be a really long day,

and I think it's going to be hard to...

..perhaps for some of us, to contain ourselves.

Can we just go back to what 'reasonable doubt' means?

Reasonable doubt...

..means that there is no other logical explanation

for Mr Levetto's death,

other than Mr Yang caused it.

The most problematic part of any jury discussion

is likely to be the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

It's deliberately left loose in definition

so that it is the jurors themselves, society,

that decides what the standard of proof is,

not what the judge tells them it has to be.

There is no right and wrong. It's what you think.

It's what your reasonable doubt is.

Logical explanation and reasonable explanation

could involve speculation, and we've been told not to speculate.

Well, to be fair, the entire prosecution's case was speculation.

Yes.

But all you've got to go on is injuries.

- We don't know how they got there. - We don't.

And I believe him falling down the stairs

could have definitely been a logical reason.

- It's just as plausible as what the prosecutor... - Just as plausible.

I keep coming back to saying to myself,

is there any other logical explanation?

And yeah, there are.

Yeah, I agree. There's a number of possibilities

that could have happened that day.

A number.

But, once again, I can't speculate.

I'm just going off the evidence that was handed to me.

For me, I am taking into account Shaun's behaviour.

I don't think he had any remorse.

There was no, "I'm sorry I did this."

It was all distress.

He had found Carlo in this position,

and he may as well have been dead, too.

It killed him.

Somebody's got to be responsible for Carlo's death.

His family's got to find answers.

Like, I mean, if that was my son...

Carlo was at the point already of quitting the relationship

from what he's told others.

So, there is something back there

about the relationship not being as smooth as anything.

I don't mind standing out

as long as it's in a minority of a good reason.

Not because I'm the stupid old woman.

He was definitely hit in the head

and they were having a fight and he was doing the juicer

and he said Carlo kept coming at him.

It seems reasonable that he did take that juicer.

Carlo walked away and Shaun wasn't done yet

with his anger and built-up aggression

with all the fights that they must have had, right?

So, yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right.

Any of that could have happened.

Are you absolutely sure

that there is no other explanation except that story?

Well, the only other one would be the fall from the stairs.

But there's no proof either that he did fall from the stairs

because the bloodstains aren't anywhere near.

When you said, "Yes, all of these things could happen."

And we all agree, right?

But... And you also say, "But he also could fall down the stairs."

And that to me is already reasonable doubt.

I don't have any... him falling down the stairs.

Rosa, you, just for clarity,

are you saying that there is zero percent weight

that you would attribute to falling down the stairs?

Yeah. I don't believe he fell down the stairs.

It's like, from listening.

Also, it's not our job to... It's not also our job to solve the crime.

- Remember? - Exactly.

It's not our job to solve the crime.

Just going on the evidence that they gave us.

Can I ask you three what is, like,

is there a significant piece of evidence that stands out,

that has made you flip to prosecution

and absolutely rule out...?

For me, it's his own statement.

- "We had a fight." - OK.

It's his own admission. "We had a fight."

- We had a fight. - Yeah.

And the other fact

is that if he is guilty and I've let him walk the streets...

- You know. - No, but also...

I'd rather find him guilty and let him appeal later on

because he has a right to appeal.

No. Because there's no guarantee of an appeal, though.

I think that's a bit ridiculous,

because that's a big waste of time, money, resources,

if you're doing that just to, because somebody has the option.

- Forget about the appeal. - It's the resources, emotionally. - Forget about it.

Just telling you how I'm thinking.

Van, do you have any kind of reason or comments

that you want to share?

To me, there was an attack. It was a bashing.

I don't believe that you can get that many injuries,

bruising of the brain, bruising here.

A cut here, a cut here.

Bruise, bruise, here. Bruises here.

Bruises here. Bruises here.

And this...

The expert actually said

the severity of the injuries,

it's not likely caused by the falling of the stairs,

because there definitely was a fight.

Because Shaun said there was a fight. "I had a fight with..."

- On his statement. - Yeah, but like so... OK.

I personally don't believe for a moment that he fell down the stairs

just because that's what all the specialists say. Right?

Yeah. So I don't believe that,

but I also really, you know,

do my best to contain my imagination, right?

So many cuts can be, and bruises, done during renovation.

But not to that severity.

- And no, the severity was minor. - It was not minor.

What's the use of trying to make a point

when you know they're not going to buckle?

There was bruising on the front. Bruising on the left.

- There's no haemorrhage. - Bruising on the right and on the back.

Yeah, but they did say that none of these injuries.

There was no haemorrhage. There was no brain haemorrhage.

- There was no comment. - On their own.

Put them all together.... then, yes. He died.

It felt like you were being attacked by nine of the others

trying to convince you of their stand.

- And also, Van, he's 65 years old. - But he was a healthy 65-year-old.

Well, he was also...

Then how do you explain the 14 injuries on the 65-year-old body?

Falling down the stairs.

He did not fall down the stairs.

- You don't think so at all? - At all. Without doubt. - Not possible?

They're not going to come around to your way of thinking,

same as you are not coming around to their way of thinking.

So it's a stand-off.

Audrey, what do you think?

Yes, I'd love to... Auds, girl.

I think depression also plays a part in this situation

because in that morning, he hasn't taken his meds.

I think that makes him more unstable mentally,

with Carlo bickering at him and nagging and...

- Going at him. - Yeah, going at him verbally.

"Kept criticising me a lot."

"Kept coming at me," that's the words from the transcripts.

It changes his emotions greatly,

and with so much anger in him,

he might have used that juicer,

hit him once, twice, three times.

Maybe that's the reason why he has that bruises.

During that commotion,

Carlo might have stumbled backwards and hit his head.

Maybe that's the case.

He might have just gone unconscious and just...

Just died like that.

Yeah, it's, like, more like a freak accident.

What you've just said

is pretty much what the prosecutor's...prosecution has said.

So, why do you feel he's not guilty?

Because isn't that what you've just described?

He was not...

It was not his intention to kill Carlo,

but because of his rage,

and his mind was not stable,

that happened.

It just happened.

But that makes him guilty.

That takes murder off the table and puts manslaughter on the table.

Yeah, because... Just to reiterate the statement here,

it's not "Mr Yang intended to commit death."

It's "intended to commit the act that caused the death."

I think there's a difference.

One of the things that was put to us was,

did Shaun's action contribute to Carlo's death?

Think about it. It's like, for me, it's like swatting a fly.

If a fly comes near you.

Did you mean to do that? Bloody oath.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction.

It's not like... He was in control of what he was doing.

- He intended to hurt him. - He intended... Just not...

Maybe not to hurt him. Just to push him away or anything.

But he intended to do that.

- The fight. - You don't think it's a reflex?

No, it's definitely not a reflex.

You don't think it was a knee-jerk reaction?

No, no.

I'm not saying that Shaun beat him to death.

Not at all.

How he died, I don't know.

But Shaun's act caused Carlo to be lying there dead.

- Yes. - What was the act?

Pushing him away. Swatting him with the bloody juicer.

"Swatting him." Can we stop the fly? It makes me uncomfortable.

Well, by Shaun's own admission, he had a fight.

This is a human life, not a fly.

There was some...

There was some involvement of Shaun to precipitate.

So...

..the end result, which is Carlo dying.

On the balance of probabilities, I probably do think that Shaun did it.

Did what?

Committed this unlawful act of killing.

Which unlawful act?

- Well... - The assault.

- That we don't... - Strangulation.

- We don't need to answer that, though, right? - OK.

So, on the balance of probabilities,

I think that he did commit this unlawful killing.

But do I have reasonable doubt about it? I do.

So, then can I say that beyond reasonable doubt, I can't.

And, therefore, I find him not guilty.

I just don't think for me

that the prosecutor has put forward a totally compelling,

no doubt about it, no other reasonable explanation for it.

Yeah.

- I also ask the simplified questions. - Yeah.

"Are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt

"that, 1, Shaun Yang intended to be physically violent

"towards Carlo Levetto?"

- To me, yes. - Yes.

So, the second question is,

"Did this violence cause Carlo Levetto to fall

"and suffer serious injury

"and/or cause Carlo Levetto to have a heart attack?"

- Yes. - Yes.

And we're back where we started.

Convince us.

And was it dangerous? Yes, it was dangerous.

- But what was dangerous again? - The assault.

Which assault?

- The juicer, you mean? - That apparently happened. Yeah.

- Which may or may not have happened. - In your opinion.

No, no, I'm just asking you. Your opinion.

Which is against your opinion.

In the experts' opinion.

The expert said the death, cause of death,

was because of head and neck injuries.

- Blunt force trauma. - Arguably. Yes. - Blunt force trauma.

OK, so did Carlo do that to himself?

- The injuries to himself? - He might have.

- Might have. - Who's to say?

Carlo killed himself. There you go.

- Carlo killed himself. - He could have tripped.

- No. You don't... Don't know. - He could have tripped.

It's so intense.

It's this real bubble of just real intense emotions.

Because when you think about it, of course,

lock people in a room, have these intense opposing opinions.

Of course it's going to feel like you're in the deep end.

There's evidence of the bruising and lacerations and...

- Yeah. No, no. - There is bruising on the brain.

- Can I just go back to that? - So what caused that?

There's evidence from the experts

that it could have been from falling down the stairs.

- Yeah. - Right.

But to you, there's no doubt that it wasn't that.

- Yeah. OK. So then if there was... - That's what I'm saying.

The thing is, we don't all have to agree.

- Yeah, yeah. - Yeah. The problem is, we do.

- We do. We have to be unanimous. - No, we don't.

Yeah, but that's the whole point of us being here.

We need to be unanimous in our verdict.

No. We don't.

Oh, then we hung jury.

Go hung jury.

If that's what it's called, a hung jury,

then, yeah, that's what it will be.

Thank you.

The jurors return after a lunch break.

It's been a tense three hours of fiery argument,

but they must deliberate for at least eight hours

before a hung jury can be formally declared.

Some jurors spend days locked in debate.

The jury are expected to engage in debate and discussion,

to test their views, to test their perception of the evidence,

to move from their extreme positions to a more central point.

It's not clear. That's why we're here.

That's why we've got a jury.

I'm not saying I'm right and they're all wrong

because maybe I'm sitting here wrong.

We'll find out at the end of the day, but...

It's what a jury is. We're here to do the right thing.

We might be a bit of a roller-coaster,

but I think at the end we'll be able to chip away

at those random or outrageous thoughts

and get to that conclusion.

How are you feeling, Rose? Going through that evidence?

Yeah. I'm just choosing who I'm...

Yeah.

Is it making things a bit clearer for you, though?

There are one or two that are very opinionated in the group.

I get the feeling that they feel superior.

It's just a look some of them were giving,

like, seriously, like, you know.

And you think, "Yeah. Right. You're so smart, aren't you?"

OK, so can we start with another hands-up vote

of where we're sitting?

- Yeah? - Yeah.

So, everyone who believes Shaun is not guilty.

Right. OK. There's nine.

And those believe he's guilty.

Still the three. OK.

Craig is Muslim, Rose is Catholic, and I'm Catholic.

I think if there were more religious people,

maybe we would have had a unanimous guilty vote

because the other nine were not religious.

The three religious people pointed at a guilty verdict.

Obviously, you know, the definition of insanity

is to keep trying to do something and come up with the same results

so maybe it would help lead the discussion

is just very briefly tell us

why you are 100% convinced that he is guilty.

For me, it's the combination of the injuries.

You know, there had to be some reason why he got those bruises.

And there's no disputing that he has these lacerations and bruises.

How do you account for that?

Like, I'm saying, that's why Craig and I are saying it's a fight.

All we're saying is, if there is no proof one way or the other...

Yeah.

..what call do you make?

So, what you're saying... You're saying...

You're saying there is all that evidence that he's got the injuries?

Yeah.

- If there's bruising, there's violence that caused that bruise. - Not necessarily.

He was trying to convince me to go to the not guilty,

but he wasn't going to sway me because I can't change.

I've got to stick with it.

I'm thinking the way I'm thinking because of my life experience.

What is it that proves to you

that it was Shaun that caused those injuries?

I don't see Carlo making those injuries himself.

Even if it was an accident, if he fell.

That's not the question. That's not the question.

It's not the question.

What was the question?

That was like a pack of wolves trying to attack him individually,

trying to get him to conform.

We're not disputing the injuries that he has.

What piece of evidence has convinced you 100%

that it was Shaun that caused those injuries?

Oh... The Chinese burn is one.

It shows that there was a resistance that there...

No, but that's. That's Shaun's injury.

- Shaun's injury being entirely inflicted on... - We're talking about...

- Oh, the injuries on Carlo? - We're talking about. We're talking about the injuries on Carlo.

Floor person's job is to keep it in an orderly conversation.

I thought that was his job,

but he seemed to be the leader of their pack. So...

- What is it that the prosecution has come up with? - The prosecutor...

- ..said two things. - The only way he got these injuries

is because of something that Shaun did.

Because the prosecutor said two things -

falling and the head,

and they were indicating that the juicer was thrown.

- But that was speculation. Remember, it's a circumstantial case. - Yeah.

I can see how, like, it's so tricky to separate,

like filling the gaps in, especially if you're a creative person.

Right? It's almost like story creates itself. Yeah?

Ultimately, we're there to be on the same page.

Clearly, I wouldn't be moving anywhere from my page,

so we would want them to come to our side.

But to me, that's the evidence. There's DNA on the juicer.

And there's a bruise on Carlo.

The guy actually lives and makes juice every morning.

Is that not strange?

The DNA on the juicer.

Guys, guys, guys. It's five against one. One at a time.

He's supposed to convince us, right? We just...

Listen, there's no way that I'm...

Whatever I say, you guys are not going to change your minds.

No, but we're saying...

No matter what I say, you can ask me.

We're seeking to understand the link that you're making

between the evidence that you're relying on.

I've told you, the DNA.

And you disagree with me, and that's... That's the case.

How does his DNA...

The DNA on the spout and the DNA on the rim.

So, is that the only way that Carlo's DNA got on that jug?

Oh, no, he could have... Yeah, it could be another.

He could have... Carlo could have used the juicer.

But if it could be another way, then there is doubt.

There's doubt.

But then that's not 100% sure that...

Well, that's... You're convincing me to go to the other camp.

- Are you saying... Are you? - It's a possibility.

I'm admitting. It could be a possibility.

Yeah. Rose. Same question.

What's the thing that's convinced you

that something Shaun did led to Carlo's death?

Well, going through the script, start with Sandra Fisher,

who identified the burns,

and she reckoned that screwing the skin one way with one hand

and another way with the other hand.

So, there had to be hands on to do that.

There was evidence of the two policemen

trying to hold his arms to get the handcuffs on.

Two policemen. They won't get you and do this to you.

But you can also get a Chinese burn by doing that

while this hand is twisting.

- So, there was the Chinese burn. - That was a Chinese burn.

And then the Crown prosecutor asked

if indeed the accused is strangling him,

would that be consistent

with the bruising that you have seen on the neck?

And Ben says certainly that would be an explanation for it.

But his answer is to a speculative question.

There's no proof that he was, in fact, strangled.

There's too much proof of body damage on Carlo.

The only one person in the place is Shaun.

Yeah.

And it just was, logic just links the two together.

We can't say,

"Because there is no explanation, this is the explanation."

Yeah. That's right. And it becomes... It becomes a speculation.

- Yeah. - Yeah.

What we need to go on is the evidence.

If the evidence isn't saying anything either way,

we can't force it one way.

Sorry.

- Yeah. Craig. - Guilty.

- How? - Why do you come to that? - What's the...?

Through my life experiences, I've had a few fights.

I've seen a few fights. Broke up a few fights.

But you're saying that fight has to mean physical?

For me, fight is physical.

Yeah. Like, if I said to you, like, you know,

if a mate said to you or something, "We had a fight."

- Is that to you, like, they've got to do it physically? - Yeah. It's a fight.

- It's not a verbal fight. It's not a... - No. It's a fight.

But, Craig, do you think that's imposing your own way of thinking?

Yeah. Absolutely. That's it exactly.

There was no signs of any openness

to be thinking any differently.

I think, like, coming up with a unanimous verdict is...

It feels very distant and hard at the moment.

I keep going back to the fact that he said, "We had a fight."

To answer that question, we had a fight.

Does that give you a motive? Is that why?

That just tells me what happened. "We had a fight."

Yeah. And...

But he also said, "I didn't kill him."

"I didn't kill or murder him" is the exact paragraph.

That's what he said as well. So why do you choose one over the other?

- And also... - Not choosing. That's the facts.

It felt like they're not listening to our viewpoint really.

They keep expressing theirs,

but they're not listening to what either three of us are saying.

Our argument is this.

He could have got those bruising because he hit him with the juicer

or hit him with the fist, but he got hit.

- There's a bruise. - Maybe...

And you're saying, "No, it can't be Shaun. It can't be Shaun." Well, who else was it then?

He could have got that falling down the stairs.

Yeah, but we're saying he didn't fall down the stairs.

How do we know?

It gets a bit boring.

Because people keep going over the same thing over and over, like repetitive.

They're looking for what ifs and maybes,

and they're looking at things that are not relevant to the case,

but they think it is relevant.

What about sexual activity? That's another cause.

That's just as plausible as anything else.

- Oh, right. Right. - Deliberate asphyxiation.

We don't know that they didn't have sex the night before.

We don't know that. We weren't there.

There's no way I saw myself

to convince the other nine to go my way.

Because... Yeah, well, there were very strong-willed people in our group.

I guess we're trying to get you to convince us because that's how it works, right?

Let's get you guys to convince us.

Yeah, but I don't think whatever I say,

you guys have already made up your minds.

I don't want to convince you.

If we're taking the evidence of the experts, all of the experts,

Right? All of them have said at one point or the other,

they've gone through all those injuries

and said it could have been something else.

We're not going to reach unanimous decision. I'm 90% sure.

Unlikely, but it could have been a fall down the stairs.

Wait...

- I feel like we're going... - We are. - ..circles.

I'm trying to differentiate the things that...

I think we're going to be a hung jury.

- We're not getting anywhere. - We're trying not to.

We're going around. We're going around.

A hung jury occurs in less than 5% of trials,

but it's the worst-case scenario for everyone,

very likely resulting in a retrial.

We've got theory.

And then we've got the evidence.

Yep.

- There is no evidence. - We have to...

There is no evidence.

The lawyers keep saying could be, would be, possibly be.

Exactly right.

- No evidence. How can he be guilty? - Right?

Well, I can't see how Carlo got all those bruisings if...

But the experts can, though.

They can see other possibilities that could have occurred

that would have caused what we're seeing.

I wish we had more information than we go...but we don't, do we?

We don't.

And that's the problem.

I mean, I see in my mind the poor guy lying there.

He must have a mother or a father or a friend

who wants to know how did he die?

Of course. Absolutely.

And the judge directed us not to use sympathy.

I'm not using sympathy. I don't know the guy.

But I'm just thinking of the...

Family. Sympathy for family.

The parents, the relatives and stuff is really, unfortunately,

irrelevant here.

We shouldn't even be thinking of that.

But if there's confusion in your mind

and you're clutching at straws of saying,

"Well, it's the lawyers' reputation,"

or it's the, you know,

then I don't think you can convict a man on based on that.

That's all.

I think we owe him more than that.

Potentially someone who is innocent having their life taken away

- is also possible... - The rest of his life. Yeah.

..if we don't take the reasonable doubt seriously enough.

Take your time.

Rose said, "Don't you find it interesting

"that you and I find him guilty?"

And she said, the words "It must have...

"It must be because of our upbringing."

Was I prejudiced? Am I being prejudiced towards Shaun?

Maybe.

I have to admit that the...

Yeah, it's possible he...

It's possible that...

Yeah, I have doubts.

I have doubts. Because of that doubt,

I...maybe I'm leaning towards you guys.

And at that moment, I didn't want to put Shaun away.

I'm like, there really is no evidence.

Alright, I get it.

So, I honestly, honestly, confidently can say

I'll take... I'll take accountability.

I got it wrong. Sorry.

There just isn't for me...

Will you still love me in the morning?

There isn't for me this 100% proof.

- Love you, mate. - Oh, thanks, mate.

I will change my vote.

But I blame the witnesses for my change of heart.

Absolutely.

So yours... Are you...? Your verdict is now not guilty.

- Yeah. - OK.

The Crown did not get enough witnesses

to substantiate the proof of, like...

And in the end, I figured it was just really a surmise on my part

or my logic saying that he was guilty

when there was really no definite proof from either side, really.

So, let's have a vote.

Everyone that thinks, uh, who believes not guilty.

Shaun Young is not guilty.

Oh.

Craig, is that because you're making coffee

that you can't put your hand up?

Because can't see your hand, Craig.

I can do it.

Hey, look, Craig, there's a fly. Quick, quick! Get it!

Hey, I got it.

- OK, so... - I'm in a fight with a fly.

So, Craig, you still... you still believe guilty? Yeah?

Absolutely. 100%.

If I'm the only person that don't agree, then so be it.

Bring it on.

The jury has been deliberating

for more than eight hours.

The hurdles are so high in a criminal case,

we have to get 12 people to agree.

Our system is set up on the basis

that it's better that 100 guilty people go free

than one innocent person be locked up.

All the jurors, apart from Craig,

want to deliver a verdict of not guilty.

Can they convince him to change his mind?

Sorry, I can't ignore the fact that he said "we had a fight".

- OK. - And that's it.

- No, no. But it is actually the... - They did have a fight.

- They did have a fight. They did. - There you go.

If they can't reach a unanimous verdict,

it could result in a retrial.

..verbal or physical.

He doesn't say "we had a verbal fight.

He doesn't say we had a physical fight. He said, "We had a fight."

- So that's a fact. - That's a fact.

Once I've formed an opinion, then pretty much I stick to it

unless proven wrong.

With all the discussions that we're about to have and everything,

I'm very unlikely to change my mind.

You need to convince us now.

No. I don't.

Well, we have to convince him.

- He's only one. - No. I don't.

It doesn't bother me, honestly. They could all come at me.

That's alright.

But I don't understand how if they had a verbal fight

and there's a body there,

how you're coming to the conclusion that he's guilty.

Because it says there "some unlawful act."

The only part that bothers me is they don't see what I see,

or they don't hear what I hear.

- What's the evidence of the unlawful act? - The fight.

Which may have been verbal.

- May have been. - That's right.

In your opinion.

It doesn't rely on our opinions.

- You have no evidence it wasn't. - Correct.

So what?

You're just making an assumption it wasn't a physical fight.

- No. I'm looking at the evidence. - Is that what you're all doing?

No, it's just if we've got doubt in both.

If we've got doubt in both, you have to ride with the defence.

And it seemed to come down to one word.

He was saying, "Well, he said he had a fight."

And it was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

From the evidence that says there was a fight

how can you say 100% sure that it was a physical fight?

Because my interpretation of the word 'fight' is physical.

Your interpretation of the word means nothing in this.

Does this mean that, honestly, going forward,

if we just can't change one person, like, or they don't agree with us, what does this mean?

- You are trapped. - It means that there is some doubt.

I can never go home.

Craig, if something's open to interpretation,

- it means that it's not definitive. - Yeah. That's correct.

In other words, there's doubt.

No.

Oh.

Of course it is. I mean, that's just the logic.

That's the words. You've said yourself.

It's open to... Anything that's open to interpretation.

- Just playing with words. - I'm not. I'm not playing with words.

I'm playing with the English language.

Craig's got balls. When he's picked a side. That's it.

Like, he's got conviction and it shows...

It shows who he is.

I felt bad for leaving his side.

I let him down.

Previously, you said, "I'm highly unlikely to change my mind."

But you didn't say impossible.

So, what would cause you to have doubt?

- Nothing. - So it's impossible.

The only reason I'd change my mind is I want to go home.

- But that's easy. That's easy to do. - It is easy.

- Because right now I want to go home. - You want to go home? - Mmm.

- You do? - Absolutely.

Ah. All you need to do is to change your mind.

Yeah. That's all I have to do.

- Just say he's not guilty. - Yeah.

But then it feels like it's not genuine. Like...

Would my pride let me do that? No.

Oh, that's about pride. See, it's not about facts or anything.

Well.

This is going to sound bad, but I feel like a crim.

I feel like I'm trapped.

Craig, your point is absolutely valid.

And it may have actually happened.

That's a big call coming from me because I don't believe it.

But again, it could, but I can't see that evidence.

And that's...as jurors that's our job is to base it on evidence.

So until somebody in the witness

or one of those clever guys come up and said,

"Yes, they had a physical fight."

Yes.

Apparently we've got to vote no.

I just...I find it difficult to understand

that literally, you can be deciding this on the meaning of one word

of a man whose English is second language.

I equally find it amusing that you don't think the same as me.

If Shaun hadn't said "We had a fight,"

you wouldn't be thinking this.

- You wouldn't. - Absolutely.

I'm sorry.

The stupidity of talking about the word of a man

who's not his first language, and he speaks in broken English.

And we're going to commit a man to prison

because he said the word "fight".

And you're going to go, "Right. He's guilty."

OK. You win. He's guilty. Let's go home.

I said youse win. He's guilty. Let's go.

- I said youse win. Not guilty. Sorry. - Not guilty.

Yeah. Let's go.

Craig flipped. I was shocked in how flippant it was.

Guy humiliated his manliness.

- OK. - Take another vote.

Let's do another vote.

- Does it feel genuine? - Like, it's as easy as that.

- OK. Who is not guilty? - Who says not guilty?

- Not guilty. - Not guilty. - Not guilty.

- OK. - Sweet.

You want to ring the bell?

- Everybody's happy. - Make everybody happy.

I wish I didn't, but it's too late, I did.

Um, I have to live with that.

Uh, can we inform the judge

that we've reached a unanimous decision?

- Certainly can. - Thank you.

'Stupid' might not have been

the most diplomatic way of describing it.

I was probably wrong to say that to someone,

but, I mean, I just... I just was... I was...

There was a level of frustration.

I'm just angry at myself because I caved.

Now, yeah, I felt like I've let a criminal go free.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

I still think he's guilty.

And, um, I'm sort of, um, in the background of my mind there

and waiting for something to come up

to say that he was found guilty in the real trial.

And I can just sit there, and, yeah, "I told you so."

So, the judge says thank you for coming to a decision.

If you'd like to accompany me, we're going to head into court now.

It's not an uplifting sort of feeling of elation

that, thank goodness we came to a decision

and we...now justice is served.

That's not what you walk away with.

- I'm like, I'm so nervous. - Why?

- Well, it's my last time. I feel like... - I'm relieved.

Like, seeing his face. Not guilty.

Alright. If you'd like to follow me, please.

It's a bit of anxiety, fraught with some very serious issues.

And we can't take away from the fact that someone died.

The jurors have arrived at a unanimous verdict.

They now need to deliver it to the court.

But will it be the same verdict as the original trial?

All rise.

You know, I hope it brings closure.

I hope it's the...hope to God it's the right decision.

No-one's convinced me otherwise.

Could I please ask the foreperson to stand.

Have you and the jury agreed upon your verdict?

Yes, we have, Your Honour.

Mr Shaun Yang is charged with the manslaughter of Carlo Levetto

on the 12th of March, 2022

at Petersham in the state of New South Wales.

How say you?

Is the accused guilty or not guilty?

Not guilty.

So says your foreperson.

So say all of you.

Foreperson, you may be seated.

Jury, you now appreciate the profound responsibility this role entails

and its importance in our justice system.

At this point, you would normally be dismissed.

But I have a lot more to tell you about this case.

As you know, you are not the first group of 12

to decide the fate of our defendant.

You'll be very curious to know

the decision of the jury that came before you.

They deliberated for two days,

and at the end of that time, they reached a unanimous verdict.

They found the defendant

guilty.

- No way. - Thank you.

No thank you.

But even more curiously, you are not the second jury to hear this case.

You are not even the third.

You are the fourth jury.

The defendant was the first to be retried

under double jeopardy law in New South Wales.

The case was sent to court three times.

In the first two trials,

they found the defendant not guilty.

It was the third trial, again relying on the same evidence

that our defendant was deemed guilty

and given an eight-year jail sentence.

He served more than two years in prison

before a New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

overturned the conviction.

Justice Adamson,

an Appeal Court judge,

noted the defendant had loved his partner

and he had not wanted him to die.

Thank you.

Before the jurors are dismissed,

the judge has one more bombshell to deliver.

The name of the man who died was Mario

and his partner, whose trial formed the basis

of everything you have just heard in this court, was Phillip.

He has a pre-recorded message to share with you today.

Mario is a really lovely person and we loved each other very much.

We were very good partners.

I hope no-one experiences I've been through.

It's really hard to understand how the law works

in many ways.

I think a lot of cases

it's the jury make a wrong decision.

I'm gay, I'm Asian. I think it's got some discrimination against me.

I feel very strong about that.

Police, you know, said to me, you know,

"Go back where you come from."

I've been put in jail straightaway.

Terrible things happened and it make me very nervous.

And I've been in...

I've been thinking kill myself quite some time, you know.

And...

Um...

Really, really tough.

If we can turn back to the time,

it would be good to, uh, Mario is still alive.

Yeah.

That would be wonderful.

I still keep all...

..his clothes at home with me.

You know.

You know, somebody you love suddenly is just gone.

I'm sorry.

He always in my heart.

He will be the rest of my life.

You can't... You can't turn back and you can't change.

And life will go on.

And, um...

I try to be strong.

The verdict of a jury is not always welcome

and arguably not always right.

But justice cannot be done without you.

This court is dismissed.

Court officer, please escort the jury out.

Thank you.

Fuck. It can't be done without us? It CAN be done without us.

It can be done much better. This is just awful.

Fuck.

That poor man.

That poor, poor man.

All rise.

I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry that he had to go through this three times.

I'm sorry that he lost...

I'm sorry that he lost Mario and that he didn't get a chance...

He didn't get a chance to, like, grieve and have that closure.

It's like, oh my God, there, there's, there's Phillip

and he's a real human.

And this happened.

Just feel awful about the whole situation.

How can they say that he's guilty?

Based on what? What evidence?

This guy spent time in prison just being miserable,

being abused and being suicidal for nothing.

Yeah? It's not good enough.

The system that puts together people who are frankly incompatible

and try to make some decisions, which is clearly uninformed.

Well, I feel like it's wrong.

Yeah. To me, he's still guilty.

You know, nothing I can do about it now. And what's done is done.

I'm glad I changed my mind to not guilty

because I had no evidence.

If I did see the real Shaun, Mr Phillip,

I wouldn't be shy to say I got it wrong. Sorry.

If this was a real thing, you know -

going on that real case and that's his real life

and that's your judgement -

I don't think I could just walk out and go back to work.

That poor man.

Even going through that legal process,

already being attacked in jail, being racially profiled,

having homophobic remarks, he could have died in there.

He could have been killed in jail.

We have a long way to go, I feel.

We have such a long way to go.

Well, we made the right decision.

We did make the right decision.

I'm proud of us.

- We got it right. - Yeah.

I think juries can work.

However, in saying that, it takes hard work to make them work.

You have to go up against people

and you have to challenge their beliefs and interpretations

and really stand for what you believe in.

But it's something interesting.

It's something out of your expertise.

It's something that you're just involved with other people,

with other humans, and you're kind of trying to solve a problem.

We invite you to leave the building now.

Your duty is done and you may go home.

- Thank you very much. - Thank you, Anne.

12 members that are all completely different.

None of us are the same really, in any way.

And somehow we all really did come together as one eventually.

There were times, but yeah,

eventually we all came back together and we made the right call.

And I'm proud to say that.

All that effort and that work - something good,

something right has come out of it.

It was an experience of a lifetime and it will stay with me forever.

Hop on a jury. Do your civic duty.

It's the greatest civic duty that you can do.

Captions by Red Bee Media SBS Australia 2024