CLN4U The Jury

Introduction In Canada, our trials are based on an adversarial system (2 competing sides presenting “facts”) Burden of proof lies on the Crown (representing society).  Must be beyond a reasonable doubt

Courtroom Participants As you are watching the video, please take note of some of the participants oom_en.swf?

Juries and Jury Selection Empanelling – the process of selecting 12 jurors Your name gets chosen for jury duty at random from the voters list. Your participation is a legal obligation. The right to a trial by a jury exists to protect the individual’s right and to involve the community in the administration of justice. You must complete the Jury Certification Form (attached to your Summons) and use the enclosed envelope to return it to the address shown within 10 days of receiving your Summons.

The Jury People who are charged with a certain serious indictable offence have the option of trial before a judge and jury. In a jury trial, findings of fact are made by the jury.  Judge lays out the law and any legal test that has to be met in order to find the person guilty.  The jury will apply the facts as they find them and determine if those facts meet the legal test for guilt or innocence.

The Jury “The jury through its collective decision making, is an excellent fact finder; due to its representative character, it acts as the conscience of the community; the jury can act as the final barricade against oppressive laws or their enforcement; it provides a means whereby the public increases its knowledge of the criminal justice system and it increases, through the involvement of the public, societal trust in the system as a whole” -The Supreme Court of Canada-

Facts There are 12 members Must be a good cross section of society and good fact-finders Chosen by both Crown and defence

Juries and Jury Selection Let the public see conflict resolved by peers Reflect the conscience of the community Expensive Used in most serious indictable offences Accused may choose a jury in a less serious indictable offense

Juries: Pros / Cons Advantages - Juries Educates the public Fresh perspectives rather than that of the judge alone Decision must be unanimous Decision based on values and empathy rather than strict legal precedent Advantage – Judge Alone Less prejudiced Trained to make decisions based on fact not lawyer’s eloquence Judge provides reason for their decision

Jury Array pool of potential jurors assembled under provincial legislation; also called jury panel or jury roll This process occurs in the early part of jury selection Who is eligible?  Generally people 18 years of age and older Who is NOT eligible?  Lawyers, doctors, law students, veterinary surgeons, medical doctors, people in the legal profession.

Empanelling a jury Once the jury array has been assembled by the Sheriff, groups of potential jurors are convened for selection. The jury array may be challenged by the Crown or the defence, but only on the grounds of partiality, fraud, or willful misconduct by the sheriff.

Qualification to Serve as a Juror be at least 18 years old; be a Canadian citizen; and Be a resident of the province of the jurisdiction that served you.

Persons Disqualified from Serving as Juror: A police officer, lawyer, trustee in bankruptcy, employee of the Ministry of Attorney General (or certain other occupations); or A person who has been convicted of certain criminal offences within the last five years If you are disqualified, you must mail details (such as a copy of your birth certificate; or note your occupation, job title and department, etc…, on the Jury Certification Form) to the sheriff's office.

Exemptions from Jury Duty my mail If you are over the age of 65, you can choose whether or not to serve as a juror. You may be exempted for health reasons. You must submit a note from your doctor with the Jury Certification Form. Ask your doctor to write the relevant information on a prescription pad page and sign it. If you are a full-time student, you may be exempted. Submit a photocopy of your course registration form and receipt for tuition fees along with you Jury Certification Form.

Exemptions from Jury Duty by Contacting Sheriff’s Office: Serving as a juror would cause you extreme hardship. Example: a nursing mother, or self-employed and your business would be threatened by your absence. Limited ability to speak or understand English or French would impede your duty as a juror. Firm travel plans or other vacation plans conflict with the jury selection or trial date. If you still feel you have valid reasons for exemption, you will have a chance to discuss them with the judge before you are sworn in.

Jury Challenges Peremptory Challenge: The procedure by which the defence or Crown can reject a potential juror without giving reasons Authorized by the Criminal Code s (1) Number predetermined by the charge (example: high treason on Murder 1, 20 challenges)

Jury Challenges Challenge for Cause: Here potential jurors are challenged if either the Crown or the defence believes they will not fulfill the responsibilities of jury duty. The grounds justifying a challenge for cause are set out in the Criminal Code s (1). The most frequently used example is the Crown or defence say that the jury (jurors) are not impartial.

Other Reasons for a Challenge for Cause Question establishing or confirming the identity of the juror; a juror has a personal connection to the Crown or the accused; a juror has been convicted of an offence for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding twelve months; a juror is an alien; does not speak the official languages of Canada a juror is physically unable to perform properly the duties of a juror

Jury Challenges Challenges of Jury List: The first type of challenge is rarely used. Either side can challenged the validity of the jury list if they believe that selection of the panel was fraudulent or biased.

Jury Duty Sworn in and take their seat in the jury box Informed of their duties by judge must not:  Discuss the case with non-jury members  Follow media reports about the case  Disclose any information from jury discussions Usually you can go home at the end of each day unless sequestered – housed until they reach a verdict Jurors may be discharged for valid reasons. If jury falls below 10 – new trial

Juror Obstruction of Justice Gillian Guess (born 1955) a Vancouver women who was convicted of obstruction of justice after becoming romantically involved with a murder defendant while she was a juror in his trial. Her case is significant because it set legal precedents in three areas of Canadian law:  Her case is the first known case where a juror has had sexual relations with a murder defendant after his trial,  The only case where a juror has faced criminal sanction for the decision they have made,  The only case in Canadian law where jury room discussions where made part of the public record

Picton Case and Right to Fair Trial A Canadian pig farmer and serial killer convicted of the second-degree murders of six women. He also charge in the deaths of additional twenty women, many of the prostitutes and drug users from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. In December 2007, he was sentenced to life in prison, with no possibility of parole for 25 years – the longest sentence under Canadian law for murder.

EVIDENCE Trial Procedures

What is the point of Evidence? Evidence is the way in which the Crown and the defence try to reconstruct the chain of events. The evidence tries to convey the facts to the court so that a judgement can be announced. Only relevant evidence is usually admissible Evidence can be excluded from the trial if proper procedures during the investigative process are not followed.

Types of Evidence: Circumstantial, Direct, Physical Demonstrative Hearsay

Circumstantial Evidence Indirect evidence that links the accused to the crime. allows a judge or jury to infers or accept a fact based on a set of known circumstances.  Example: A child is found standing by an open cookie jar with cookie crumbs on his face. The circumstantial evidence would indicate the child ate a cookie. However, he was not actually seen eating the cookie.  For example, something belonging to the accused may have been left at the crime scene but there is no direct evidence to prove that the accused actually committed the crime.

Direct Evidence Evidence given by a witness usually a verbal description of what the witness knows about the events.  Example: Someone sees a child eat a cookie out of the cookie jar.

Direct Evidence The way a witness describes and interprets the event depends on the individual’s personal filters (what they saw, heard, smelled or felt about an event)  How Reliable is direct evidence from a witness?  Eye Witness Reliability Eye Witness Reliability

Direct Evidence cont…  The witness first tells his/her story (testimony)to the court in examination in chief.  Examination in chief: oral examination of witness by the lawyer who summonsed the witness to testify  The witness is then subject to cross examination by the opposing lawyer.  Cross examination: oral examination of a witness by a lawyer who did not summons the witness to testify, designed to challenge the witnesses’ evidence

Physical Evidence A.K.A.- Real Evidence evidence that consists of physical objects that can be offered into evidence.  Example: The cookie jar with the child’s fingerprints on it. Other typical examples…  weapons,  tools,  tool markings,  fingerprints,  blood, hair, skin samples

Demonstrative evidence: evidence that assists in presenting or demonstrating a fact. Example: A map of the kitchen showing the child’s proximity and access to the cookie jar. Other typical examples… charts, maps, photographs, crime sketches Demonstrative Evidence

Hearsay Hearsay: Evidence consisting of matters that a witness was told and did not witness themselves Witnesses cannot testify about indirect knowledge. Their testimony will not be admissible Example:  Dan assaults Dylan.  Paul was there to see it.  If Jesse, testifies that Paul told her that Dan assaulted Dylan it is deemed second hand information and therefore hearsay.

Voir Dire a mini-hearing held during a trial on the admissibility of challenged evidence. Example: a defendant and his/her counsel may object to a plaintiff's witness. The court would: 1. Suspend the trial, 2. Excuse the jury (if it is a jury trial) 3. Immediately preside over a hearing on the standing of the proposed witness, and then, 4. Resume the trial with or without the witness, or with restrictions placed on the testimony of the witness