Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[Matty81]

So the dirt bags trying to defend a bunch of alleged criminals and 100% confirmed sleazeball human beings are accused of harassing the jurors... and the jurors get dismissed?


Canadas justice system in a nutshell right there, bend over backwards making sure accused criminals have their rights respected

[Titan2]

Phantom double post.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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.

Well to be clear the note stated several felt that way. "many people are saying..."

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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

I didn't say tech would impact the appeal. Also, there were many jury decisions to get to this point. There was a mistrial at one point. As you know, without the details we don't know what was agreed to and there is always fertile ground for appeal. A bit premature to declare no possibility for appeal without way more info than what we have.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Well to be clear the note stated several felt that way. "many people are saying..."

Which is why I said "more than one"

[Eric Vail]

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.”

It wasn't one glance or one hypersensitive person. Many of them felt they were being disrespected daily.

Brown and Dudding sound like immature jerks whose reputation should take a hit for this.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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 juries. I am not sure if that would work better or not though.

Agreed, most normal people need to work to pay bills and no one wants to blow though their savings while having to sit in a courtroom.
It is a joke with the tiny amount they allow and you even have to pay for parking or your own public transportation. Only a small number of people would willingly do this.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Matty81

So the dirt bags trying to defend a bunch of alleged criminals and 100% confirmed sleazeball human beings are accused of harassing the jurors... and the jurors get dismissed?


Canadas justice system in a nutshell right there, bend over backwards making sure accused criminals have their rights respected

So you would rather, when a jury admits that they have formed a bias, unrelated to the case, that it should be allowed to continue?

And yes people should have their rights respected when they are accused of a crime.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

It wasn't one glance or one hypersensitive person. Many of them felt they were being disrespected daily.

Brown and Dudding sound like immature jerks whose reputation should take a hit for this.

The note said it was multiple people, but that doesn't make it true necessarily.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Psytic

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

Jury Duty seems like it sucks at the best of times and I'm not even really following a lot of the details of this case, but I can envision not wanting to be there anymore.

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

It wasn't one glance or one hypersensitive person. Many of them felt they were being disrespected daily.

Brown and Dudding sound like immature jerks whose reputation should take a hit for this.

I know nothing, but I'd guess, based on their experience, this was less 'immaturity' and more calculated. They probably did it on purpose to take their chances with a Judge as opposed to a Jury.

But thats just me spitballing and I am no legal expert nor do I play one on TV.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I didn't say tech would impact the appeal. Also, there were many jury decisions to get to this point. There was a mistrial at one point. As you know, without the details we don't know what was agreed to and there is always fertile ground for appeal. A bit premature to declare no possibility for appeal without way more info than what we have.

You mentioned tech right after talking about "wondering about an appeal".

But there have been two jury decisions (the mistrial and the dismissal of the jury) and both were supported by both sides. That makes it almost impossible to appeal those decisions.

Appeals in a criminal trial are typically based on improper admission or exclusion of evidence (I know of no significant objections to admissibility so far), improper jury instructions (not going to happen now), or applying an incorrect legal test to the ultimate issue. This hasn't happened yet, and would only be evident if the judge comes out with a detailed ruling. If she just says "I am satisfied beyone a reasonable doubt based on all the evidence" the appeal would have to be that this is a palpably unreasonable finding of fact (which is a much higher standard than just "incorrect").

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Which is why I said "more than one"

Sorry. My point was that it was a note from one juror saying that "more than one juror felt that way." I am only pointing out that people lie about what others think so they are not singled out. Just because the one juror said that it the note does not mean there was more than one person that felt that way.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

Jury Duty seems like it sucks at the best of times and I'm not even really following a lot of the details of this case, but I can envision not wanting to be there anymore.



I know nothing, but I'd guess, based on their experience, this was less 'immaturity' and more calculated. They probably did it on purpose to take their chances with a Judge as opposed to a Jury.

But thats just me spitballing and I am no legal expert nor do I play one on TV.

If they wanted a judge only they could have opted for a judge alone trial.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Locke

Jury Duty seems like it sucks at the best of times and I'm not even really following a lot of the details of this case, but I can envision not wanting to be there anymore.



I know nothing, but I'd guess, based on their experience, this was less 'immaturity' and more calculated. They probably did it on purpose to take their chances with a Judge as opposed to a Jury.

But thats just me spitballing and I am no legal expert nor do I play one on TV.

I would also spitball that it is more likely one Karen juror.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If they wanted a judge only they could have opted for a judge alone trial.

You're right, I suppose thats true. Maybe it was something that just cropped up during the process? They thought they'd get a better trial with a jury and then all of a sudden things dont appear to be going well?

I have no idea.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Locke

Jury Duty seems like it sucks at the best of times and I'm not even really following a lot of the details of this case, but I can envision not wanting to be there anymore.



I know nothing, but I'd guess, based on their experience, this was less 'immaturity' and more calculated. They probably did it on purpose to take their chances with a Judge as opposed to a Jury.

But thats just me spitballing and I am no legal expert nor do I play one on TV.

I pondered this possibility too but I am also not a legal expert. I do see them portrayed on TV though.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So you would rather, when a jury admits that they have formed a bias, unrelated to the case, that it should be allowed to continue?

And yes people should have their rights respected when they are accused of a crime.

Accusing lawyers of behaving unprofessionally constitutes a bias now? these are people who make their living defending alleged sex pests, not much of a leap to see them behaving like dicks

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Buff

I pondered this possibility too but I am also not a legal expert. I do see them portrayed on TV though.

I have seen a lot of Matlock but this never happened on the show.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Locke

You're right, I suppose thats true. Maybe it was something that just cropped up during the process? They thought they'd get a better trial with a jury and then all of a sudden things dont appear to be going well?

I have no idea.

That would quite the risk to piss off the jury in hopes they mention it?

Better chance the jury just hates them and express their disgust at verdict time.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

That would quite the risk to piss off the jury in hopes they mention it?

Better chance the jury just hates them and express their disgust at verdict time.

Very good point.

But at the same time...if you're fairly confident the winds of verdict are blowing against you...maybe you take that risk?