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

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 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.

Tech will have nothing to do with any appeal. Jury related decisions seem to be agreed upon by both sides so no appeal there.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Royle9

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

An interpretation of what they thought they saw is not necessarily what actually happened.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I have no idea, but doesn't sound like a mistrial, so must be judge making decision. Seems odd. I am not a lawyer but this is what google told me.

https://www.ccohs.ca/infectious-dise...l-jury-process

Discharge of jurors – During the course of a trial, the judge may direct that one or more jurors be discharged, which results in them being relieved immediately from the jury. This situation can arise when a juror falls ill or faces other intervening circumstances, or where circumstances arise that disqualify the juror. A jury will remain viable provided it has at least 10 members. If its numbers drop below this point, the entire jury may be discharged due either to a mistrial or to election to proceed by judge alone. Discharged jurors will exit the courthouse and arrange for their own transportation home.

I would think Trial by Jury would be better for the defendants, with everything that I have seen and heard so far, it seems likely at least one juror would have reasonable doubt up to this point.

Not a criminal lawyer, but there does seem to be some unfairness here. The way you present and plan for a case before a jury would be substantially different than for judge alone. I guess it can proceed via consent? Probably a good idea from the defendants' perspective if jury members are outright stating that they don't like you.

[dustygoon]

Must be more to this. Def lawyers giving perceived dirty looks to at least one juror and they come to interpret this as an afront of some kind. On purpose to intimidate? Or the jurors are overly sensitive?

Regardless, it has to be pretty tough for jurors to not be swayed by the salaciousness. I know i would have a tough time just focusing on evidence.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Jury must have some real homely heifers on it.

This is disgusting. Especially in context of this trial. Everything that was wrong there is well-embodied in your comment.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Must be more to this. Def lawyers giving perceived dirty looks to at least one juror and they come to interpret this as an afront of some kind. On purpose to intimidate? Or the jurors are overly sensitive?

Regardless, it has to be pretty tough for jurors to not be swayed by the salaciousness. I know i would have a tough time just focusing on evidence.

A lot of lawyers (and people in general) have extreme type A personalities and lack the ability to see how others perceive them. Although you'd assume Defence Counsel, before a jury, would be hypersensitive to those issues, it's not always the case.

It's also pretty easy to misinterpret very minor things into larger things. Trial is also a multi-day long and exhausting affair. The lawyers may just have been physically exhausted too (standing up and speaking for an entire day is quite gruelling) and given a tired look, which was perceived as a nasty look.

[Goriders]

What a circus.

We think they are making fun of us? Are you kidding me?

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

This is disgusting. Especially in context of this trial. Everything that was wrong there is well-embodied in your comment.

Weird to get upset with me instead of the lawyers that made fun of them.

Anyways, I am sorry. The jury must have people who are self-conscious of their physical appearance, whether real or perceived. The important thing is that we shouldn't make fun of the way people look, no matter how ugly they might be. That is childish.

I wouldnt be surprised if selecting homley jurors was a jury selection strategy by one side of lawyers

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The important thing is that we shouldn't make fun of the way people look, no matter how ugly they might be. That is childish.

And yet you did just that.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Weird to get upset with me instead of the lawyers that made fun of them.

Anyways, I am sorry. The jury must have people who are self-conscious of their physical appearance, whether real or perceived. The important thing is that we shouldn't make fun of the way people look, no matter how ugly they might be. That is childish.

I wouldnt be surprised if selecting homley jurors was a jury selection strategy by one side of lawyers

I thought both the crown and the defense counsel have to approve jurors?
My experience is limited to showing up for jury duty, listening to the counsel ask questions of potential jurors and then told that the rest of us are dismissed.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

This is disgusting. Especially in context of this trial. Everything that was wrong there is well-embodied in your comment.

It was a joke. i chuckled - we don't know the jurors, this wasn't a personal attack - if you didn't like the joke just move on, no need to turn this into something bigger (no pun intended).

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by VilleN

It was a joke. i chuckled - we don't know the jurors, this wasn't a personal attack - if you didn't like the joke just move on, no need to turn this into something bigger (no pun intended).

This isn't the thread for jokes

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not a criminal lawyer, but there does seem to be some unfairness here. The way you present and plan for a case before a jury would be substantially different than for judge alone. I guess it can proceed via consent? Probably a good idea from the defendants' perspective if jury members are outright stating that they don't like you.

Really, there's no legal difference in what you'd prepare. I guess you'd cut down on any theatrics and playing to jurors.

[Yeah_Baby]

I have a feeling the defensive felt that the way the wind was shifting they had a better chance with a judge than a jury.

[Monahammer]

Society lacks serious and mature people. Juries require serious and mature people. Lawyers are required to be serious and mature people.

[Yeah_Baby]

Formenton's one lawyer sounds like a treat. They're the reason for the first mistrial.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by blankall

A lot of lawyers (and people in general) have extreme type A personalities and lack the ability to see how others perceive them. Although you'd assume Defence Counsel, before a jury, would be hypersensitive to those issues, it's not always the case.

It's also pretty easy to misinterpret very minor things into larger things. Trial is also a multi-day long and exhausting affair. The lawyers may just have been physically exhausted too (standing up and speaking for an entire day is quite gruelling) and given a tired look, which was perceived as a nasty look.

According to the note to the Judge (posted above) it wasn’t just “a look” but a daily occurrence from Formenton’s lawyers. The Jury had an immensely and lengthy unpleasant task. I’m sure if you were on it, you’d be perfectly coiffed, dressed in your most resplendent, if uncomfortable clothes etc. Sheesh.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Psytic

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

I think it's true that most people don't want to do jury duty. A few months ago, my wife was selected for jury duty for a BC supreme court criminal case of a trial expected to last 6-8 weeks. They only pay like $80 per day (I can't recall the exact amount as it changes the longer the trial goes, but it was certainly a lot less than her salary no matter what). In the questionnaire they sent out, she said that being on a jury would cause an undue financial burden and child care problems and she was dismissed as a candidate. It was pretty easy to get out of and I think they cast a huge net for this reason.

But we were worried that they wouldn't accept that and did some internet searching about getting out of jury duty in BC. I recall reading a thread on Reddit where some anonymous lawyers were saying it is really hard to get good juries because it pays so low. They claimed that only people who actually want to do it are retired people and chronically unemployables, as well as citizen sleuth types, so you can get quite an odd group of people. I don't know if that it completely fair because I am sure you must get the odd few people that just want to participate. Some unions have contracts with employers that ensure they still get paid their salary if on a jury, which helps some people.

In some places like California, there are actually volunteer juries where people sign up to purposely become jurors. I am not sure if that would work better or not though.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Psytic

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

They could have just straight up said this from the start.

[GirlySports]

Some cases are rough though. It's really unfortunate to force people onto juries where they are shown disturbing evidence that could haunt them for life.