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

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Locke

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

Matlock? You're old! as am I

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by 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?

It doesn't. A publication ban exists for the case regardless of who the trier of fact is.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Buff

Matlock? You're old! as am I

Oh man, my extended family used to have a cabin in Ontario and I use the term 'cabin' generously.

Anyways, it got 2 channels so for glorious, glorious lunchtime we got re-runs of Murder She Wrote, Knight Rider and Matlock and then it was just the News.

So...you got what you got. Also...yes. It does appear I am getting old.

Where is old Matlock anyways? He could pull off this verdict!!

[Buff]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

It doesn't. A publication ban exists for the case regardless of who the trier of fact is.

How does the media make that distinction now? Obviously they have been given instructions on that, but I'm curious on what those instructions would look like. Do they have to be told for each instance of unreportable news or are they already told?

I also assumed that some of the stuff they couldn't report on when the jury was out of the room was done so to not have word get out to the jury that could possibly influence them. Now that there isn't the concern of the jury being accidentally or improperly swayed one way or the other would some of those conversations no longer be banned from being reported?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

It doesn't. A publication ban exists for the case regardless of who the trier of fact is.

This is separate from the publication ban. The media couldn't report anything that happened without the jury present. Now that there is no jury, they can report on some of the side conversations that they couldn't before.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...hear-1.7536599

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh man, my extended family used to have a cabin in Ontario and I use the term 'cabin' generously.

Anyways, it got 2 channels so for glorious, glorious lunchtime we got re-runs of Murder She Wrote, Knight Rider and Matlock and then it was just the News.

So...you got what you got. Also...yes. It does appear I am getting old.

Where is old Matlock anyways? He could pull off this verdict!!

Don't you mean she could pull off this verdict?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matlock_(2024_TV_series)

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Matty81

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

Yes, I would say believing the lawyers are making fun of you, which they deny, is a bias.

The purpose of our legal system is to ensure each side is represented, so simply because a lawyer chose to go into criminal law he or she is a dick? This is clearly showing your bias.

I was not interested in pursuing criminal law, but it is certainly a worthy and honourable choice to make, in order to ensure the system is fair.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by 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?

just found this. Sounds like they can.

The shift to a judge-only trial means arguments, evidence and other information discussed in the absence of the jury can now be disclosed.

Here are some things jurors didn’t hear about the case:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl...08da0d19&ei=53

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Matty81

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

Yes. Absolutely because it impacts their ability to judge the case objectively.

Your entire post shows bias and underscores the point.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This is separate from the publication ban. The media couldn't report anything that happened without the jury present. Now that there is no jury, they can report on some of the side conversations that they couldn't before.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...hear-1.7536599

If I'm reading that correctly, Formenton's lawyer was the lawyer who was the central focus of the jury both times they jury had to be dismissed.

[united]

From The Athletic, Formenton's representation involved in both.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/636...ry-discharged/

"A previous mistrial was declared on April 25. At the time, the reasons for the declaration were protected by a publication ban, which has since been lifted because of the election for the case to proceed by judge alone.

That mistrial occurred after a juror reported that a member of the court — Dudding — spoke to her at a local market during the lunch break.

Brown, Dudding’s co-counsel, told the judge that his understanding of the situation was that there was an accidental and innocuous interaction during which Dudding and the juror were next to each other in line for lunch and his colleague acknowledged the awkwardness in a benign way.

That juror, who was later called in front of the judge and attorneys, described the interaction differently, stating that Dudding spoke to her in line, and referenced there being a lot of “head-nodding” that morning. The jury had recently heard the Crown’s opening statement."

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by Buff

If I'm reading that correctly, Formenton's lawyer was the lawyer who was the central focus of the jury both times they jury had to be dismissed.

Yeah I saw something else that said Formenton's Lawyer spoke to a juror in the lunch line. Said something along the lines of there was a lot of Head shaking going on today.

Sorry I can't find the link now.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Well if that lawyer spoke to a juror outside of court, that's just really f'n dumb.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well if that lawyer spoke to a juror outside of court, that's just really f'n dumb.

I mean....whats more to be said than that?

[nieuwy-89]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...hear-1.7536599

Confirms some of the concerns I mentioned in my post earlier today. The tech issues, facility issues, the circus show of protesters... these things do have an impact on the trial and the disposition of justice.

And yeah I get that tech issues happen but in most large organizations they get addressed and dealt with. If you work for a company that has the same tech issues every day I'm pretty sure your company would be looking for a different solution.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Buff

Don't you mean she could pull off this verdict?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matlock_(2024_TV_series)

#notmymatlock

Although Kathy Bates is awesome.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Confirms some of the concerns I mentioned in my post earlier today. The tech issues, facility issues, the circus show of protesters... these things do have an impact on the trial and the disposition of justice.

And yeah I get that tech issues happen but in most large organizations they get addressed and dealt with. If you work for a company that has the same tech issues every day I'm pretty sure your company would be looking for a different solution.

So again are you proposing not allowing people to protest?

[Sled]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

This isn't the thread for jokes

It's the thread of lynch mobs and victim blaming from what I've read so far with some actual information on the process from people who live this everyday without the sensualism of national attention.

Hopefully more public will be as passionate about why the number of incidents reported are going up but the number of charges laid are in decline. Habitual criminals are being released daily. We know its hard to come forward which means we don't know how much of a real problem this is in our country. AND don't take my word for it, Check out statscan site for yourself.

The result of guilty or not guilty may come down to a technicality one way or the other but the true justice will be why so much effort was put forward to convict 1st time offenders (high profile I understand, with I'm sure most people will agree have a micro chance to repeat) and not the serial criminals out there that are making Canadian streets unsafe to walk.

I hope the crown takes as much care and time to convict career criminals as they do with people who are 1st time offenders and minuscule chance to repeat.

to be Canadian these days.

[nieuwy-89]

Not in a trial environment. I don't see the purpose of standing outside a courthouse to harrass the accused. It has nothing to do with the trial and just introduces risk to the due process.

[response to Jiri]

[Locke]

Sorry...what? Protestors?

What are they protesting? We dont have a verdict yet. Like? Set the hockey players free? Lock them up? Deliver sandwiches to the jury so grocery line foul-ups dont happen?

What are they standing for?