The Jury: Murder Trial - Episode Guide

Legal experiment following the restaging of a real-life murder trial re-enacted word for word in front of two juries of ordinary people, neither of whom know about the other. Will they both reach the same verdict? In this first episode, we hear the real-life case of a husband who killed his wife with a hammer but denied murder. The defendant claims that he lost control, but will he be believed?

The defence claim husband John lost control because victim Helen made his life intolerable. John's description of her taunts moves juror Jodie to tears, as she recalls her own previous marriage. Juror Kelly is angry and upset at the victim blaming of Helen, as she herself has also been a vulnerable single mum in her past. Some of victim Helen's ex boyfriends give damning character statements about her and a psychologist declares that she had a personality disorder. Some of the jurors begin to sympathise strongly with the defendant - and juror Gary reveals a shocking episode of 'loss of control' within his own marriage.

The prosecution cross-examines John, saying he provoked Helen and was simply angry. Nineteen-year-old Ollie in the blue jury is convinced it's murder but is dismissed for not understanding the complexity of adult relationships. Emily in the red jury thinks she understands why John stayed in the relationship with Helen, rather than walking away, after looking after her alcoholic dad. John admits he may have fetched the hammer from outside the house. Ollie on blue jury thinks this is significant - but not everyone agrees. The evidence ends with positive character statements for John, leaving both juries conflicted and torn.

The prosecution and defence give their closing speeches and the juries retire to decide their verdicts, though both start divided. In the red jury, Ricky is sure it is manslaughter and hopes he can persuade his fellow jurors that he is right. However, two rival camps soon form. In the blue jury, Sonia and Olly are convinced it is murder, and while some are swayed, others say they will never agree. As the days pass, the debates become increasingly heated in both juries. Finally, however, they reach their verdicts.

A word-by-word restaging of a real-life murder trial, in which a young mother find herself in the dock after stabbing her boyfriend in the chest with a kitchen knife. She says it was self-defence - but the ultimate decision lies with the jury, made up of 12 local members of the public. Will they reach the same verdict as the original trial?

The jury are presented with evidence of the victim's previous violent behaviour - including CCTV footage from the night of the killing itself. Some jurors believe the defendant, and are convinced she is a victim of domestic abuse. But others suspect she is lying, and think the evidence doesn't fully add up. As the divide in the jury deepens, alliances and friendships begin to form.

The prosecution cross-examine the defendant, trying to demonstrate that the defendant is lying about the night of the murder. They present evidence of her previous violent behaviour and challenge her over the lies she told to police and emergency services about her boyfriend's death. Tempers flare in the jury room, as jurors increasingly disagree with each other. An argument leads to tears, and rival groups begin to accuse the others of failing to assess the evidence properly.

After a final, surprising new piece of evidence from the defence, both sides present their closing arguments. The jurors retire to consider their verdict. Arguments break out, and the foreperson is forced to plead for calm. Can the deadlocked, bitterly opposed jurors find common ground and deliver justice? Conversely, there remains the possibility that they may fail to deliver a verdict at all.