Chapter 6 Trial Procedures.

Chapter 6 Trial Procedures

Outline Intro Courtroom Participants Juries and Jury Selection
Presentation of Evidence Reaching a Verdict Watched criminal trials on TV, movies and seen prosecutors and defence lawyers argue their cases in court? Prosecutors Crown Witnesses Accused Judge/jury Learn about: Trial procedures in criminal courts in Canada Learn about people involved in criminal trial process and understanding what is expected of each of them Learn about the jury selection process and the roles they play in determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. Discover that the criminal trial process is a complex system with strict rules about what can and be used as evidence in a trial

Introduction The system of trial procedure used in Canada is known as the adversary system, because it is assumed to involve two opposing sides. Crown (society) Defence (accused) Type of offence determines the form of trial available to an accused (summary, indictable and hybrid) Criminal Trial – Burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. For a conviction, both the actus reus (wrongful deed) and mens rea (guilty mind) elements of the offence must be proven as you learned in chapter 4. This chapter focuses on trial by judge and jury. Provincial court – summary conviction or minor indictable offence, trial procedures are similar to what is described in this chapter. No jury is chosen, however, and the proceedings are less formal; the judge alone is the decision maker. There are three possible ways in which indictable offences may be tried: Provincial Court judge without a jury, Court of Queen's Bench judge without a jury, and Court of Queen's Bench judge with a jury. A lawyer can best advise you as to what trial method is best for your situation. You must attend court personally at all times. If not, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

Courtroom Organization
Judge/The Bench/The Court Federal gov’t appoints judges to the Superior and Federal Courts and SCC Provincial/territorial judges and jop are appointed by of each province. Impartial and have full control of the courtroom, set the tone, Can exclude the public and even the accused if necessary to administer justice and maintain order. Cameras/Televised, SCC Is evidence admissible? Rules – appeals w/o jury, credibility of witness, guilty or not, sentence if no minimum set Canadian trial procedures are adapted from English Law – same in each province and territory. Most bail hearings are before the jop, first appearance, issue documents for police, search and arrest warrants, some areas they can conduct trials for offences against municipal bylaws and provincial laws (driving w/o a licence or speeding under the Highway Traffic Act).

Crown Attorney Defence Counsel
Lawyer who prosecutes on behalf of the gov’t and society, responsible to see that justice is done, burden of proof is on the Crown, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, disclose all info (principle of disclosure), decide if they lay charges Defence Counsel Represents the accused, legal rights protected, proper defence, can represent himself/herself … not encouraged, trained in procedural and substantive law,

Court Clerk Court Recorder The Sheriff Other Court Officials
A person who keeps records and files, and processes documents for a court Court Recorder A person who documents court proceedings The Sheriff carry out much of the court administration and trial preparation, make sure the accused appears in court, find prospective jurors, and assist the judge, serves summonses (order to appear in court), carry out court orders Other Court Officials Probation officers, interviews, help with sentences Non-profit organizations (JHS, TH, Elizabeth Fry, etc.), help defendants,

Beginning Motions Stay of proceedings R. v. Askow, 1990
Other kinds of motions might challenge the legitimacy or admissibility of particular evidence. Generally argued in the absence of the jury. Case Pg. 186

A Judge's Responsibilities
During a trial, a judge must act impartially or in an unbiased manner. Judges control the courtroom during bail or preliminary hearings and trials. They must ensure that proper rules and procedures are followed in court. If there is no jury, a judge must also hear the evidence and decide on the verdict in the case. Judges may also rule on a number of motions, including whether or not to admit evidence.

The Lawyers The adversarial system features lawyers to represent the government and the accused. Lawyers who represent the government are the Crown Prosecution and those who represent the accused are the Defence Counsel. Crown prosecutors, or Crown attorneys, are responsible for trying to convict the accused. The Crown also has significant powers to lay or withdraw criminal charges. Defence attorneys must defend the accused against the charges to the best of their ability, however heinous the charges are.

Judge VS Judge and Jury The prejudices which a jury might bring to its task Legal technicalities involved in a certain case A judge can be relied upon to make a decision based on the facts and the law, rather than on the rhetorical skills of either side Lawyer need sway only one juror Strong rhetoric will have a greater influence on a jury than a judge (conditioned) Decide a case in accordance with the social values of the time, rather than precedent Feel empathy for the accused

http://www. sasklawcourts. ca/index
The Jury Regulations, 2000 set out the fees paid to jurors. In criminal matters, jurors are paid $80.00 for each day or part of a day that they sit. In civil matters, jurors are paid $15.00 for each day or part of day that they attend court for the jury selection process. Once a person is sworn in as a juror, they receive $25.00 for each day they sit on the jury. No Shows -

Juries Serious indictable offences are decided by juries – members of the public who are randomly selected to hear a case and decide on the verdict. There are usually 12 people selected to serve on a jury through a process called empanelling (the selection of a jury). Civil Court – only ________ jurors. A jury panel is a group of citizens who are selected for possible inclusion on a jury. If a case is controversial, the number of potential jurors included in the jury panel increases. Empanelling – can take many days, first – a list of jurors is created from an electoral (voting) list of all people living in the area where the court is located. Selection committee headed by the sheriff then randomly picks names from the list. Jury Panel created and people selected are summoned to appear at the court by notice from the sheriff. More controversial the case – more people are called. Ensure that those who are biased or who have already formed opinions about the case can be eliminated. Prospective juror who does not appear can be used a warrant and can even be criminally changed. Length will vary depending on charges and the complexity of the case.

Who Can Be a Juror? Although each individual province and territory may have its own additional criteria, a potential juror must have these qualifications: He or she must be… A Canadian citizen At least 18 years old A resident of a province or territory for at least one year Fluent in English or French Mentally competent

Exemptions From Jury Duty
The following people are usually exempt from serving on a jury: Politicians Judges, justices, lawyers, law students Doctors, coroners, veterinarians Law enforcement officers and their spouses People who are visually impaired People with certain mental or physical disabilities People who have served on a jury within the previous 2–3 years Anyone convicted of an indictable offence without a pardon being granted People may also be excused from jury duty if they can convince the court with a specific reason (e.g. illness, relationship, language, hardship). Ordinary citizens with no particular knowledge or skill in the law. Certain occupations are exempted from serving on juries – social worker in a federal prison, judges, lawyers, police officers too knowledgeable about the law and their experience may influence their thoughts on the case. Medical doctors and veterinarians are also exempted from jury duty b/c the yare considered experts like judges or firefighters. Others: visually impaired, mental or physical disability, served on a jury within the preceding 2-3 years, convicted of an indictable offence that has not been pardoned.

Screening Potential Jurors
During the screening of potential jurors, the Crown and defence have an opportunity to ask a series of questions, which commonly include: Are you a Canadian citizen? Are you fluent in French or English? Have you been convicted of an indictable offence for which you have not been granted a pardon? What is your occupation? Do you have a mental or physical disability or medical condition that may interfere with your ability to serve as a juror? Have you been summoned for jury duty in the last three years? If you receive a form called a Return to Jury Service , you will be required to answer these types of questions to determine your eligibility for jury duty. If you do not complete the form or you supply false or misleading information, you could receive a fine of not more than $5000 and/or service six months in jail. In your opinion, should prospective jurors be fined or imprisoned for violating the requirements of the Juries Act/Jury Act? Explain.

Jury Challenges There are three types of challenges that the Crown and defence can use to accept or eliminate a prospective juror: challenge of jury list challenge for cause peremptory challenge Both sides want a jury that is responsive to their position. To get this, they challenge, eliminate, or accept various prospective jurors. Defence has the first right to challenge a prospective juror. After that, the prosecutor and the defence alternate the right of challenge.

Challenge of Jury List The Crown and defence may challenge how valid the jury list is, but this is rarely done. If either side can prove the list is fraudulent or biased, a challenge of jury list may be successful. Very rare! Example: The accused is of Aboriginal descent. The 100 prospective jurors who have been empanelled are all Caucasian. The accused feels the jury list is unfair and challenges its validity.

Challenge for Cause This type of jury challenge can be used by the Crown or defence when they wish to exclude a potential juror for a specific reason. A challenge for cause is usually based on the belief that a juror has some kind of bias (e.g. racism, sexism, religious discrimination). Example: The accused is Jewish and his defence lawyers believe a prospective juror is anti-Semitic and can prove it. This type of challenge may be used as many times as necessary. Most common challenge for cause is that the potential juror is biased, either b/c they are prejudiced in some way or they have prior knowledge about the case.

Peremptory Challenge This type of jury challenge may be used by the Crown or defence when they wish to exclude a potential juror without a specific reason. Peremptory challenges are often based on the "gut feeling" of a lawyer or as a strategy. Example: A woman accuses her boyfriend of aggravated sexual assault. The Crown wants more young women on the jury than men and may use peremptory challenges to try and achieve this goal. This type of challenge has limits, depending on the severity of the crime. The most serious charges provide the Crown and defence with 20 challenges each, which is the maximum. Very serious charges, such as first-degree murder – 20 challenges A charge where the penalty is five years or more – 12 challenges A charge where the penalty is under five years – 4 challenges Also the judge can ask a juror to stand aside for any reasonable cause … they might be called again.

Offences Allowing Trial by Jury
Murder Treason Alarming Her Majesty Accessory to murder or treason Bribery by the holder of a judicial office Etc.

Jury Duty – Process After being selected to serve on a jury, each juror takes an oath (to arrive at a verdict honestly) and is sworn into the jury box. Jurors cannot: Discuss the case with anyone outside of the jury Follow media reports on the case Disclose any information from their deliberations even after a trial has finished The jury’s final decision on the case is the verdict and it must be unanimous or else the jury is hung (undecided). In controversial cases, a jury may be sequestered (isolated) until the case is over. Juror’s Oath “I swear to well and truly try and true deliverance make between our sovereign lady the Queen and the accused at the bar, who I have in charge, and a true verdict give, according to the evidence, so help me God” Most jurors go home at the end of each day. In rare cases, sequester the jury for the entire trial. Sequestered jurors are isolated from their family, friends and work. Can communicate only with each other and the court officer appointed to look after their needs. Verdict based solely on evidence presented in court Sent to a deliberation room to reach a verdict. A juror can be discharged during a trial if he/she is unable to continue for a valid reason. The jury cannot go below 10 members, however, a new trial must be ordered. Jury – is part of one’s civic duty! Paid,

Activity 6.2 Bertha Wilson (1st woman SCC)
R. v. Askov (stay of proceedings RYU pg. 187 6.3 R. v. Spence (jury and challenge) 191 R. v. Teerhuis-Moar, 2007 (race in juries)192 RYU pg. 194

Legal Review Cases Review Your Understanding DVD – eyewitness

6.4 Presentation of Evidence
The presentation of evidence is very important for any trial. This includes: Arraignment Crown evidence Defence evidence Witnesses Rules of evidence Self-incrimination

First step in a trial … Arraignment – at the opening of a criminal trial, the charge read to the accused and the plea entered (not-guilty/guilty)

Crown Evidence Since the burden of proof is on the Crown, it is responsible for presenting evidence against the accused. Direct evidence: usually based on witness testimony Circumstantial evidence: indirect evidence that tries to link the accused to the crime through circumstance and physical evidence Examination-in-chief – direct examination, first questioning of your witness when called to the witness stand. No leading questions (prepared) Cross Examination – the questions a lawyer asks a witness called the opposing side. Free to use leading questions. Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that any accused person “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” After the arraignment, the onus (responsibility) is an the Crown to rebut (to counter or disprove) this presumption of innocence. 1 – presents an opening statement - summarised its case against the accused. Calls evidence (witness testimony and exhibits) – paper, weapons – all evidence that is relevant, reliable, and fair is admissible, according to the Canada Evidence Act. Direct evidence – is a common kind of evidence but it is not the most reliable. Eyewitness accounts may be contradictory, and witnesses may not recall what they saw with complete accuracy. Specifics (eye glass), and over time our memory changes. Once evidence has been presented and proven, the judge or the jury must decide which evidence or testimony they find mores convincing. Steven Truscott – rape and murder on purely circumstantial evidence. 1959, 14 year old convicted of rape and under on purely circumstantial evidence. Originally sentenced to hand. He was released after spending 10 years in prison. ON Aug. 28, 2007, 28 years later, the O court of Appeal acquitted Truscott. Compensation of 6.5 million. Leading Questions – not necessary since in preparation you would already know their answers, no and yes answers, Ex: Did you see the accused driving yellow car through the red light at 1:45 am? Or Did you see Alexander at midnight? Proper , non-leading questions would be: “What happened at the intersection at the time in question?” or “At what time did you see Alexander?” Which evidence/testimony was more convincing? Here the witness’s credibility (reliability ) is a key factor. The Crown may re-examine the witness about the points brought up by the defence. If the judge permits, the defence may then re-cross-examine. Reveal character of the witness. Purpose of the trials to find the truth, and the process of a trial is to test the truth of evidence. In our adversarial system, two sides collide … dust settles … truth. Get info from witnesses, uncover any conflicts or contradictions, jury must decide the question of guilt solely on the basis of evidence both sides will try to cast doubt on each other’s evidence. Once the Crown has called all it witnesses it rests its case. It can reopen its case only if the judge decides that it would serve justice to do so.

Adversarial system/two sides collide
Lawyer cannot ask leading questions (usually yes or no answers) – a question that contains the desired answer Did you see the accused driving a red car through the red light at 1:45 am? Proper, non-leading questions wold be “What happened at the intersection a t the time in question.” Purpose of a trial is to find the truth, and the process of a trial is to test the truth of evidence. Adversarial system/two sides collide Allows each side to get more info from the other side’s witnesses. Find facts/conflicts or contradictions. Once the crown has called all of their witnesses, the rest it case.

Defence Evidence The main responsibility of the defence is not to present evidence, but to raise reasonable doubt. If the defence believes that the Crown has not presented its case effectively, the defence may request a directed verdict - asking the judge to dismiss the charges on the basis that the Crown has not adequately proven its case. If denied case goes one. If the defence decides to present its own evidence, it is usually in the form of witnesses. Everything else is meant to counter the evidence that the Crown presents. If the judge agrees that the essential elements of an offence (actus reus and mensa rea) have not been proven its case, she or she will instruct the jury to give a directed verdict of “not guilty” The Crown may also give evidence in reply if the defence raises a new matter that the Crown had no opportunity to deal with during its direct examination. The defence then has the right to present surrebuttal (evidence to counter the Crown’s rebuttal evidence) The jury must decide the question of guilt solely on the basis of evidence, both sides will try to cast doubt on each other’s evidence. Once the Crown has called all its witnesses, it rests its case. It can reopen its case only if the judge decides that it would serve justice to do so.

Questioning Review Examination-in-chief: the questions a lawyer
asks his or her own witness in court, also known as direct examination. Leading questions are not allowed during this examination. Leading question: a question that already contains or leads the witness to the desired response Cross-examination: the questions a lawyer asks a witness called by the opposing side

Steps in Presenting Evidence

Witnesses Although most witnesses appear in court voluntarily, they may be served with a subpoena – a court document that orders a person to appear in court. If a subpoenaed witness refuses to appear in court, he or she may be fined or imprisoned for up to 90 days. Witnesses are often excluded from a courtroom until it is their turn to testify so they are not influenced by what they are watching. A witness who knowingly gives false evidence or contradictory evidence may be guilty of perjury and could go to prison for up to 14 years. Children Credibility – the fact or quality of being believable or reliable. Perjury – he act of knowingly giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding Before the trial, the Crown gives the defense a list of Crown witnesses. Only expert witnesses whose special knowledge can help the court can be paid. Subpoena – a court document ordering a person to appear in court. A subpoenaed witness who refuses to appear can be served with an arrest warrant and detained for 30 days. If a judge finds it is justified, the witness can be detained for up to 90 days. Any witness who fails to attend a trial to give evidence may be found guilty of contempt of court and fined or imprisoned for 90 days. Witness – anyone who can understand the nature of the oath and the questions asked by the various parties can be called as a witness. If found not to be mentally competent, his/her evidence can be declared inadmissible. Children – a child who does not understand the nature of an oath or an affirmation can give unsworn evidence, providing the child understands the importance of telling the truth. In the charge to the jury, the judge should indicate the admissibility of such evidence. B/c children may be frightened, the judge may allow them to give evidence from behind a screen and, for certain sexual offences, on videotape. Accused – accused does not have to take the witness stand. If the accused has an inappropriate attitude or appearance, it may be in his/her best interests not to do so. This is true if the Crown’s cross-examination asks the accused questions that could lead to conviction. The fact that the accused does not take the stand should not be a factor in deterring whether the Crown has proved its case. Credibility – the fact or quality of being believable or reliable. Each side wants to discredit the other’s witnesses. Evidence will often be contradictory, but that does not mean that witnesses are lying. People see things differently and memory fades. Besides credibility, the weight that should be given to evidence is also significant. It is up to the jury or the judge to decide on the credibility of a witness and the weight his/her evidence deserves.

Questions a Judge/Jury Should Ask of Evidence
Does the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case? Has the witness been influenced about the case since the offence occurred? Do other witnesses support this witness’s evidence? Does the witness’s testimony conflict with evidence he or she has given earlier?

Rules of Evidence Common law … statute law as well.
All of the rules on the admissibility of evidence are contained in the Canada Evidence Act. If the admissibility of evidence is questioned, a judge may order a voir dire (mini-trial), also known as “a hearing within a hearing,” to decide if the evidence should be allowed. If a voir dire is held, the jury is ordered out of the courtroom until the hearing on the evidence is finished. The jury returns and the trial continues. Both the Crown and the defence need an opportunity to argue their positions w/o a jury being prejudiced by their arguments in case the evidence is not allowed. Developed overtime and can be complex. Most are contained in common law, but there are also provisions in statute law, such as the Canadian Evidence Act This mini trial could take days, depending on the complexity of the case.

Self-Incrimination The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects witnesses from incriminating themselves while providing testimony during a trial. Self-incrimination - the act of implicating oneself in a crime If witnesses believe they are being asked questions which could incriminate or implicate them in a crime, they may object to the question. The only exception is perjury. Police can also use evidence a witness has given in court to gain more evidence to lay a charge against that witness. Taking the fifth – States … reference the US Constitution against self-incrimination (the act of implicating oneself in a crime), We do not have a Fifth Amendment. However, section 13 of the Charter protects witnesses from self-incrimination. Focuses on honesty of the jurors. Canada Evidence Act – states that a witness can object to questions on the grounds of self-incrimination. This act states that evidence from a witness in one court cannot be used against him/her in another criminal court case. Exception – perjury

6.4 R. v. White, 1999 RYU pg. 200 Types of Evidence

Types of Evidence These are common types of evidence introduced during trials: Privileged communications Similar fact evidence Hearsay evidence Opinion evidence Character evidence Photographs Electronic devices and video evidence Polygraph evidence Confessions Trial system is complex, judges rule on whether certain evidence should be allowed or not.

Privileged Communications
Any communication that is considered confidential is “privileged” and cannot be used in court. Examples: spouses, lawyers-clients, doctors-patients, spouses, religious officials who have heard confessions The person who receives the communication is the dominant party. If he or she decides to present confidential information, it will have no force as it is an abuse of his or her position. Crown cannot force the spouse of an accused person to give evidence against the accused based on any communication /w them. Exceptions – crimes of violence against the spouse, certain crimes related to sex, and some offences committed against minors. There can be exceptions to rules regarding privileged communications. Ex: if a client admits something to his or her lawyer, that information can be brought forward as evidence if the client agrees.

Similar Fact & Hearsay Similar Fact: shows the accused has committed
similar offences in the past; is meant to establish a pattern of behaviour; sometimes called “the similar fact rule” Hearsay: information that is repeated by a third party; not coming from the direct experience or knowledge of a witness (e.g. repeating something he or she heard someone else say) Similar fact – used to show that the accused might commit the offence again. Also used to refute defense claims that the offence was a mistake or an accident. Discredits the accused’s past it is only admitted in rare situations where it is relevant to the case. Generally the judge will hold a voir dire, and the jury will leave the courtroom while the lawyers argue over whether to admit similar fact evidence. Hearsay: Georgina says she heard Silas say he had seen Anton (the accused in a murder) stab and kill Gavin. Georgina’s statement would be challenged as hearsay evidence b/s she did not see the murder. Third party. Some circumstances, however, hearsay is admissible, such as when the person who made the statement has died. An out of court statement may be admitted as evidence. Hearsay evidence is also admissible if the witness is quoting a person who was dying, as long as the evidence would be admitted if the person had lived. The hearsay evidence must be reliable and necessary to help the judge and jury decide the case.

Opinion & Character Opinion: evidence based on the observations of
an expert who may be paid for the testimony; expert testimony must be relevant to the case Character: information about what kind of person the accused is; indicating the likelihood of their committing the crime. The defence may introduce this type of evidence to generate sympathy for its client, but this also allows the Crown to question the accused’s character. Character evidence – info indicating the likelihood of an accused committing or not committing the crime. Unless an expert in the field, his/her opinion is generally inadmissible. Must be relevant and necessary to help the judge or jury reach a decision. Expert evidence can have a major impact b/c a judge or jury may see the expert as being infallible (incapable of making a mistake). For that reason, a judge will allow the evidence only if it is on a topic that is outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury” Character – The Crown often wants to introduce evidence of any negative character traits and previous convictions of the accused. This kind of character evidence is prejudicial (intended to influence the jury to convict). The Crown is restricted in its use. Cannot use a series of questions to indicate that the accused has a criminal character or nature. The defense is allowed to introduce character evidence to support the accused’s credibility. Good character – evidence – could lead to acquittal Canada Evidence Act – sates that witnesses maybe questioned about any previous criminal convictions as a way to verify their credibility. This also applies to an accused person who chooses to testify. However, questioning must not attack the credibility of the accused, unless such cross-examination is relevant to the fact that the accused is lying when presenting his or her evidence.

Photographs & Surveillance
Photographs may be entered as evidence if they are proven to be an accurate portrait of the crime scene. Consider: who, when, where, how, processed - Photoshop. Film processor A judge may exclude photographs if they are simply meant to inflame the jury. Surveillance includes cameras and other electronic devices used to intercept private conversations. Surveillance devices must be authorized by a court order. Search warrants are not needed for video surveillance in public places, but are required on private property… reasonable expectation of privacy. Electronic devices/video surveillance – admitted only if CC procedures have been strictly followed. Court rulings have generally agreed that electronic surveillance must be treated as a last resort. The CC also permits police to intercept private conversations w/o authorization in certain circumstances if they believe the following: Situation is an emergency That interception is needed immediately to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property That one of the parties under surveillance is either performing that act or its intended. As well, a person who fears bodily harm can authorize police to intercept his or her private conversations w/o obtaining judicial permission. This right can be critically important in cases of spousal abuse and stalking.

Interesting Info: The CC also permits police to intercept private conversations w/o authorization in certain circumstances if they believe the following: Situation is an emergency That interception is needed immediately to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property That one of the parties under surveillance is either performing that act or its intended. As well, a person who fears bodily harm can authorize police to intercept his or her private conversations w/o obtaining judicial permission. This right can be critically important in cases of spousal abuse and stalking.

QUESTION People can take photographs and video footage with their cellphones. Should cellphone images of an alleged criminal incident be admissible in court? Explain.

Polygraphs & Confessions
A polygraph (lie detector) test measures changes in a person’s blood pressure and pulse rate when he or she is asked questions. Supreme Court has ruled that polygraphs are not entirely reliable and therefore are not allowed to be introduced in court as evidence. Police still use them as an investigative tool. A confession occurs when an accused person admits that he or she is guilty of a crime (inculpatory statement). For a confession to be considered in court, it must be provided voluntarily by the accused. SCC – Phillion v. R – ruled that the tests are hearsay and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Polygraph tests are not infallible. There is a concern that a jury might convict an accused based on his/her failure of the test, rather than the credibility of the evidence presented. Confessions - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that anyone who is detained or arrested must be promptly informed that he or she has a right to legal counsel before making any statement. Any statement that I taken from an accused person who has not been told of his or her Charter right can later be excluded as evidence. A statement can be either inculpatory (admission) or exculpatory (denial). How a confession is obtained also affects whether it is admissible in court. If there is reason to believe the confession was not voluntary – promised leniency … lengthy questioning … judge might reject the evidence.

Inculpatory – demonstrating guilt
I had blood on my hands. Exculpatory – clearing the defendant of guilt I was in another country when the crime happened.

Illegally Obtained Evidence
Section 24 of the Charter allows the court to consider its options regarding illegally obtained evidence. Each trial, will the evidence in question bring the “administration of justice into disrepute” (hurt the reputation of the justice system) Relies “the reasonable person”, fully informed of the facts, be surprised if a judge allowed the evidence to be admitted. Severity of the offence, how it was committed, how evidence obtained = considered

Tasks R. v. Perrier, 2004 pg. 202 R. R. v. Oickle, 2000 pg. 205
R. v. Spencer pg. 206 RYU pg. 207

6.5 Reaching a Verdict The Summation The Charge to the Jury
Jury Deliberation

Summation & Charge to the Jury
After all witnesses have been called, the Crown and defence each present a summation, or closing statement. This is a summary of each side’s key arguments and evidence. After the summations, the judge makes the charge to the jury. In it, the judge reviews the facts and defines and explains the law that applies to the case for the jury. The judge can also indicate to the jury how the evidence should be weighed. After this, the Crown and defence can challenge the charge for legal errors. Many appeals result from the judge’s charge to the jury.

Jury Deliberation Leave the courtroom in the care of the sheriff.
Jurors select a foreperson. Unless note taking was allowed, the jurors must rely only on memory to decide what facts they believe or disbelieve. Verdict must be unanimous, the jury may return to the courtroom and ask for certain evidence or laws to be reviewed. Jury’s role – determine the facts of the case; Judge’s role is to determine the law. Jury leaves the courtroom in the care of the sheriff. One of the jurors

Two-step process in applying the facts to the law.
Discard any evidence that they do not believe. Should determine the weight that they are going to give to the remaining evidence. Jury can also pose questions to the judge for clarification. The set of facts that the jury believes will determine which law applies to the case and thus what decision the jury makes. Must apply the concept of reasonable doubt. Cannot reach unanimous verdict – judge – hung jury (a jury that cannot come to a unanimous decision in a criminal case) May be tried again in front of a new jury Verdict – juror polled – instructed never to disclose and then discharged If the jury believes the defence’s evidence or cannot decide whom to believe, it must acquit. If the jurors have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit the accused, even if they do not believe him or her. The jury must give the accused the benefit of a doubt. Defendant who is acquitted – permitted to leave Defendant who has been found guilty – sentenced Jury has no influence in deciding the penalty, except when an accused is found guilty of second-degree murder. Although not required to do so, the jury may make a recommendation to the judge regarding the number of years that the offender should serve before being eligible for parole. Did you know? In Canada, it is a summary conviction offence for a juror to disclose any information about the jury deliberations. In the states, jurors are often interviews on tv/radio and news about their deliberations.

What personality traits do you think would make an effective juror
What personality traits do you think would make an effective juror? Explain.

Tasks: R. v. Krieger, 2006 pg. 209 R. v. Burke, 2002 pg. 210
RYU pg. 211

Round Table Check Your Understanding 1-4
Apply Your Learning 6, 7 (add judge) Communicating Your Understanding 10, 11 Develop Your Thinking 12 Cases … Be the Judge ….

Chapter 6 Trial Procedures.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter 6 Trial Procedures."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Chapter 6 Trial Procedures.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter 6 Trial Procedures."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback