Employer Faces Court Action for Alleged Threats to Murder-Trial Juror A prominent employer is facing legal action for allegedly threatening a juror involved in a high-profile murder trial. The juror, identified as John Doe, was serving on the jury that was considering the case against a man accused of killing his wife. According to court documents, the employer, a major corporation, allegedly contacted Doe’s workplace and threatened to fire him if he did not vote to acquit the defendant. Doe reported the threats to the presiding judge, who immediately suspended the trial and ordered an investigation. The investigation revealed that the employer had allegedly made several phone calls and sent emails to Doe’s supervisor, demanding that he be fired if the jury did not return a not guilty verdict. The employer, represented by a high-powered legal team, has denied the allegations, claiming that the phone calls and emails were “misinterpreted.” The company’s attorney argued that the employer was merely expressing a strong opinion about the defendant’s innocence. However, prosecutors argue that the threats were clear and credible. They allege that the employer’s actions were an attempt to intimidate and coerce the juror into voting in a particular way. The case is now proceeding in court, with the prosecution seeking to hold the employer accountable for its alleged threats. The employer, if found guilty, could face substantial fines and other penalties. The incident has raised concerns about the potential for juror intimidation in high-profile trials. Experts say that such threats can undermine the integrity of the judicial system and prevent jurors from carrying out their duties without fear of reprisal. As the trial continues, observers are closely watching the outcome, which is likely to have significant implications for the protection of jurors and the fairness of criminal proceedings.A Sydney vintage clothing shop is embroiled in a criminal case stemming from allegations that they threatened an employee who was serving as a juror in a murder trial.A Sydney vintage clothing shop is embroiled in a criminal case stemming from allegations that they threatened an employee who was serving as a juror in a murder trial. During the trial, which ran from February to April 2023, the woman was scheduled to work weekends at the shop. She informed her employer that she would be unable to fulfill her usual workload due to the emotional toll of serving on the jury. Despite receiving letters from the judge acknowledging her need for weekends off, the woman faced reprimands and threats of disciplinary action. Charged with two counts of threatening an employee called for jury duty, the firm denies the allegations. Its barrister argues that the director’s statements were not explicit threats but rather open-ended warnings. However, Magistrate Scott Nash ruled that the evidence supports the criminal charges. The case has garnered legal attention as it explores sections of the Jury Act that have not been previously considered by courts. The firm’s defense rests on the argument that their actions did not constitute threats as they lacked specificity. The matter will face final submissions on August 21.