Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[Jiri Hrdina]

I work for a major corporation and we have tech issues too. It happens.

[the-rasta-masta]

Any insights into how this affects trial reporting coverage? They previously were not allowed to report on anything that transpired without the jury present. Are they now allowed to report nothing, or everything?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by troutman

In a joint statement sent to the media as soon as Carroccia announced she was discharging the jury, Alex Formenton’s lawyers, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding, wrote that “a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanour was disrespectful of her.”

“This was an unfortunate misinterpretation. No defence counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. While it is true that co-counsel will speak with one another from time to time during a trial, this is commonplace. The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function.” [tsn]

Disrespectful of the juror or EM?

[Buff]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Maybe and again I'm not an expert.

The tech issues would not be acceptable in a corporate environment so why should they be acceptable in courtroom environment?

Just seems kind of bush league.

I work in operational support for IT (I specify ops support because some people think IT is dev... it's both, really). Everyone would have you believe that IT stands for Information Technology. I have come to realize that it does not. IT stands for "In Theory". Because "In Theory" this should work and it should be easy for the end user. Unfortunately we have end users that defy logic and equipment that is just weird.

If you want to have a completely stable environment like you see in the movies and TV then you better spend ridiculous amounts of money... and that still won't make it fool proof.

[Titan2]

I was having the same thoughts about the appeal. A lot has happened in a very high-profile case, and it has not been smooth. I am not a criminal lawyer, but I would expect things like tech to work when it is such a high-profile case. All of the jury-related decisions will create another potential ground for appeal once the lawyers start digging into them.

Not that it calls the system into disrepute or anything, but it is not a great look. Which is what Nieuwy said.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Royle9

The one thing that keeps replaying in my head is the recollection of her laying on the floor naked, playing with herself and asking every guy in the room to f__k her. That's just very odd.. especially with all of E.M and multiple players both part of the investigation and witnesses being called for testimony all having said this same thing. However I do understand this doesn't mean they get to spit and degrade her, which is where the guilty of being disgusting pigs comes into play.

If we are to believe this testimony (and theres no reason to not believe as it was a prosecution witness) I would guess that the reason this witness was called was to differentiate between where consent started and ended - and that EM can change her mind as the night goes on.

There is also the entire sobriety part of this . As the night goes on, assuming EM is sobering up and not drinking / drinking at the same rate, her willingness to perform certain acts may change/decrease.

So it could very easily be that at the start drunk/non sober EM was fully into and consenting, but later in the evening sober EM wanted to leave/was no longer into this. Combining that with multiple men who had been previously consented too do these things and are drunk/not sober and (guessing) quiet turned on/horny/into it at that point, it's not that hard to see them getting more persuasive and keep pushing EM to continue to sexual escapades to a level she wasnt going to be comfortable with, or had sobered up and was no longer comfortable with.

[Mickey76]

I had no idea this was allowed. So a question for the legal people, if the accused want, can they demand a new jury or do they have to accept that it is now a trial by judge?

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

I had no idea this was allowed. So a question for the legal people, if the accused want, can they demand a new jury or do they have to accept that it is now a trial by judge?

According to the reporting, both Crown and all Defence “agreed”. So would appear not a forced issue.

Can’t see the tech issues, no matter how annoying, as anything other than an annoyance.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

According to the reporting, both Crown and all Defence “agreed”. So would appear not a forced issue.

Can’t see the tech issues, no matter how annoying, as anything other than an annoyance.

The defense was probably offered two options: keep the jury knowing that many of the jurors really hates you. Or go with the judge.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JusAFlamer

This seems strange
approach for judge, jury is drastically different

even though not everything presented yet
current leanings personally would have been toward not guilty due to reasonable doubt

having it go to judge only is massive as now it is down to a different type of trial
where it is not simply reasonable doubt. it comes down to technicalities and legal basis purely.

i am just not a fan of it changing mid trial. Can still go either way. however now it is no longer simply about reasonable doubt
( example : consent video's are not binding so judge can simply ignore existance completely whereas a jury cannot really. and question of cohersion no longer exists )

No, this is not true. The trial is exactly as it was before. Reasonable doubt is still the standard. The judge decides facts now, instead of the jury, that's all.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by troutman

In a joint statement sent to the media as soon as Carroccia announced she was discharging the jury, Alex Formenton’s lawyers, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding, wrote that “a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanour was disrespectful of her.”

“This was an unfortunate misinterpretation. No defence counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. While it is true that co-counsel will speak with one another from time to time during a trial, this is commonplace. The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function.” [tsn]

Well that’s strange.

[Scroopy Noopers]

From the beginning I thought the decision to have this decided by a jury was insane. Whether or not the law was technically broken, you’re going to have a hard time finding 12 people remaining neutral on the details of this. Most people think it’s ####ed up regardless of legal implications.

Judge is the fairest for both sides.

[GullFoss]

From globe and mail

The decision comes after a juror handed the judge a note on Thursday that accused two of the defence lawyers, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding, of inappropriate behaviour in the courtroom.

The note read: “Multiple jury members feel we are being judged and made fun of by lawyers Brown and Hilary Dudding. Every day when we enter the courtroom they observe us, whisper to each other and turn to each other and laugh as if they are discussing our appearance. This is unprofessional and unacceptable.”

[GullFoss]

Jury must have some real homely heifers on it.

[Strange Brew]

Are the tech issues surprising? They can’t get the AC working in the building either. I’m not expecting the Ontario Justice System to have a resilient technology infrastructure.

[Royle9]

Well that's very odd, have to believe the Juror's wouldn't lie.

[Strange Brew]

Seems like a tough break for the prosecution. You had some jurors who thought the defense counsel were a-holes.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Well that's very odd, have to believe the Juror's wouldn't lie.

I don't see it as a lie v. truth thing.
For whatever reason they developed that perception, which would impair their ability to objectively decide the case.

I would find it very unusual for the lawyers to be making fun of jurors. These are very senior attorneys in a high profile case, and these accusations impact their reputation. So I struggle to see them actually doing it.

But it also doesn't matter. More than one juror felt that way, so at that moment, they can't continue.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Maybe and again I'm not an expert.

The tech issues would not be acceptable in a corporate environment so why should they be acceptable in courtroom environment?

Just seems kind of bush league.

Tech issues are extremely common in Court, and can be on either end.
I.e. I was in Court last week, and one of the attendees could not get his computer properly synched. Everything on the Court's end was fine, but it was the other Defendant who had the issue.

[Psytic]

Good way to get out of jury duty. Maybe they just wanted to be dismissed.