Originally Posted by
_Agrajag_
I wonder why some inquests are held with a jury and most are not? The only one I've ever been to had a jury, although I wasn't convinced that their input was that useful. They were directed by the coroner as to the most likely verdict, so clearly that I rather think most of them took it as an instruction. They were only out for a very short time before coming back and delivering the verdict the coroner had pretty much told them to return (accidental death).
Having been a juror at a coroner's inquest I may be able to shed a little light. The jury can ask questions that the coroner may not have the remit to pose. In my case the pertinent questions were about the administrative arrangements for the gold and silver commanders of a police force. Having been aired they became part of the coroner's narrative which exposed systemic weaknesses. Similarly health trust problems can be exposed by a jury. The narrative goes beyond the 'who, where and how' which is the coroner's verdict.