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

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Buff

That is why they dismissed the jury and went with trial by judge instead. A juror complained to the judge that two of the lawyers were coming in and looking at the jurors and making inside jokes to each other about the appearance of the jurors. Apparently more than just the two jurors were noticing it and there was concern that this would cause the jurors to form biases.

https://lfpress.com/sports/hockey/ju...-assault-trial

I took “intimidation by accusers supporters” to mean people outside the courthouse, not the lawyers.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I took “intimidation by accusers supporters” to mean people outside the courthouse, not the lawyers.

At the very least, it should have said "accuseds' supporters", not "accuser's supporters"...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Was it? I didn’t see that reported anywhere.

It was one of the reasons there was a delay in proceedings and the jury had to leave the room. It couldn't be reported on until after the jury was discharged. The jurors had to go through the same gauntlet of taunting that the accused had to in order to get into the courthouse.

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

The problem with supporters

Supporters for E.M. began showing up on the courtroom steps when she started her marathon testimony and cross-examination. But lawyers worried their presence would be a problem for jurors, who use the same entrance as everyone else and had to walk past signs of support for one side.

"They are on the steps and they are targeting our clients," said Foote's lawyer, Julianna Greenspan. "It is quiet as a mouse until we turn a corner. It is an act of intimidation."

Arrangements were made for the jury to use a different door to enter and exit the courtroom so they would not walk past the supporters.

However, on the fourth day of E.M.'s testimony, some of the protesters got into the courtroom itself with placards and "were waving them while people were coming through," Greenspan said.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

The Sexual Assault Centre of Ottawa has posted a scathing review of the myths and allegations faced by E.M. in the trial, and it isn't pretty:


https://sascottawa.com/ocrcc-responds/


The experience of a young woman − a complainant named as “E.M.” in court documents, in which five former World Junior Hockey players were charged with sexual assault − is a case in point of the reasons why survivors hesitate to report. Over the last few weeks and five cross-examinations in court, E.M. has faced almost every harmful and victim-blaming sexual assault myth in existence.

What exactly is their solution to victims being put on the stand? There's usually not much evidence, the victims testimony is pretty much the whole case in the more gray cases.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It was one of the reasons there was a delay in proceedings and the jury had to leave the room. It couldn't be reported on until after the jury was discharged. The jurors had to go through the same gauntlet of taunting that the accused had to in order to get into the courthouse.

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

OK, to be clear, that does not indicate the jurors were being intimidated nor is it a reason the jury was dismissed. It doesn’t even indicate they had to endure taunting at all.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

The Sexual Assault Centre of Ottawa has posted a scathing review of the myths and allegations faced by E.M. in the trial, and it isn't pretty:


https://sascottawa.com/ocrcc-responds/


The experience of a young woman − a complainant named as “E.M.” in court documents, in which five former World Junior Hockey players were charged with sexual assault − is a case in point of the reasons why survivors hesitate to report. Over the last few weeks and five cross-examinations in court, E.M. has faced almost every harmful and victim-blaming sexual assault myth in existence.

To me, this was the problem with reporting every detail. Of course a defence team is going to say these things and ask these questions. That’s not wrong.

That is then broadcast out to everyone, sentence by sentence, which 100% emboldened some people to say similar things in their daily lives.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Itse

That statement feels weird to me. The women I've talked about this case with both thought it was messy, and it would be hard to convict. "Not everything that's morally wrong can be a crime" was a direct quote from one of them.

It's not like opinions on stuff like this strictly follows gender lines.

Originally Posted by Wormius

How can the jury be considered lopsided? The jury still needs to decide unanimously, don’t they?

I was posting the opposite view of what the OP posted. The original post inferred that because players have money, they can afford lawyers that can undermine jury pools to their own benefit. It can be thought of both ways - it's not just a one way street. If you one can infer lawyers undermined jury pools because they viewed them as biased, maybe they can be biased? I'm not sure. I like to give the benefit of the doubt to lawyers and not get into conspiracy theories.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OK, to be clear, that does not indicate the jurors were being intimidated nor is it a reason the jury was dismissed. It doesn’t even indicate they had to endure taunting at all.

The thing that triggered the jury dismissal was the note from the juror that said the lawyers were laughing at her and other jurors, which is lunacy IMO. No defense lawyer is going to try to piss off a jury and the eventual note to the judge and dismissal could not have been predicted based on that.

When the prosecution and defense made their case to the judge about whether the jury could continue without bias, the defense did bring up what they considered jury intimidation from activists the week before. The judge had previously stated that it was indeed a concern, but she called it "jury interference". IMO, if I was a juror, it would be intimidating to have to run a gauntlet of activists to get into the courthouse.

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

Protests stir concerns over jury interference, intimidation

Protesters voicing support for the complainant have regularly gathered outside the courthouse in the morning since the woman first took the stand on May 2, hoisting signs and chanting slogans such as "break the silence, stop the violence."

The demonstrations stirred concerns over their possible effect on the jury after defence lawyers noted that jurors were having to "run the gauntlet" to enter through the main entrance.

While free speech is important, the protesters are "forcefully and loudly" advocating for a specific result as jurors come through, said lawyer David Humphrey, who represents McLeod.

Arrangements were made to have jurors come in through a secure entrance instead, but Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said she was alerted later that day that protesters were now planning to gather at both entrances – a development the judge said she found concerning.

"I will ask the staff to notify the police because if there's any interference with the jurors, then those people should be arrested," Carroccia said on May 5.

https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/con...rial-1.2306988

Maybe it wasn't the main cause, but it was a consideration. IMO, I would be more worried about that because it wasn't limited to just one juror, but they all had to experience that. It's really unfair to a jury to put them through that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The thing that triggered the jury dismissal was the note from the juror that said the lawyers were laughing at her and other jurors, which is lunacy IMO. No defense lawyer is going to try to piss off a jury and the eventual note to the judge and dismissal could not have been predicted based on that.

When the prosecution and defense made their case to the judge about whether the jury could continue without bias, the defense did bring up what they considered jury intimidation from activists the week before. The judge had previously stated that it was indeed a concern, but she called it "jury interference". IMO, if I was a juror, it would be intimidating to have to run a gauntlet of activists to get into the courthouse.



https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/con...rial-1.2306988

Maybe it wasn't the main cause, but it was a consideration. IMO, I would be more worried about that because it wasn't limited to just one juror, but they all had to experience that. It's really unfair to a jury to put them through that.

Nothing actually indicates it was a consideration, though. It was an issue brought up two weeks prior, solved by having jurors enter through a secure entrance, and wasn’t brought up in the discussion of the dismissal.

The fact that two separate juries has issue with Formenton’s representation leading to a mistrial and a jury dismissal is probably the bigger concern than the possibility of jury intimidation which the judge adequately dealt with weeks before.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I took “intimidation by accusers supporters” to mean people outside the courthouse, not the lawyers.

You took that well. I just didn't read and automatically assumed that addict was talking about the lawyers.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by DJones

What exactly is their solution to victims being put on the stand? There's usually not much evidence, the victims testimony is pretty much the whole case in the more gray cases.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

To me, this was the problem with reporting every detail. Of course a defence team is going to say these things and ask these questions. That’s not wrong.

That is then broadcast out to everyone, sentence by sentence, which 100% emboldened some people to say similar things in their daily lives.

I believe the “myth” part was with respect to all the questioning about what went on IN THE BAR prior to their adjournment to the hotel room. Was she drinking? Dancing? Crotch grabbing/grinding? Etc.

All utterly irrelevant to the actual events IN THE HOTEL ROOM.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The thing that triggered the jury dismissal was the note from the juror that said the lawyers were laughing at her and other jurors, which is lunacy IMO. No defense lawyer is going to try to piss off a jury and the eventual note to the judge and dismissal could not have been predicted based on that.

I agree it was total lunacy. People in stressful situations sometimes invent crazy scenarios. Unfortunately, I've seen it in the workplace with accusations like cameras, stalking, and kick-back conspiracies that have no basis in reality.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I believe the “myth” part was with respect to all the questioning about what went on IN THE BAR prior to their adjournment to the hotel room. Was she drinking? Dancing? Crotch grabbing/grinding? Etc.

All utterly irrelevant to the actual events IN THE HOTEL ROOM.

I don't think the questioning about things that happened in the bar were meant to insinuate that she couldn't have been assaulted after. It was partly to establish general mood, but mainly to cross reference with he statements she made and point out inconsistencies.

She never mentioned if her statement that she was being sexually aggressive or reciprocating at the bar. She said that the guys were buying her drinks non-stop, but the video shows her buying her own drinks. When asked about it, she says she was too messed up or can't remember, yet she remembers other details that happened at around the same time.

It's not evidence that she wasn't assaulted, but it does then bring into question the accuracy of statements about things that did happen in the hotel room too. It makes it more plausible that she would leave stuff out or have selective recall.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

I agree it was total lunacy. People in stressful situations sometimes invent crazy scenarios. Unfortunately, I've seen it in the workplace with accusations like cameras, stalking, and kick-back conspiracies that have no basis in reality.

Username checks out.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nothing actually indicates it was a consideration, though. It was an issue brought up two weeks prior, solved by having jurors enter through a secure entrance, and wasn’t brought up in the discussion of the dismissal.

The fact that two separate juries has issue with Formenton’s representation leading to a mistrial and a jury dismissal is probably the bigger concern than the possibility of jury intimidation which the judge adequately dealt with weeks before.

Potentially. There's multiple posters in this thread who've made very disparaging remarks about the defence lawyers without actually ever having seen them in person. Without knowing what's happened, this is a pretty easy case to have a pre-existing bias on, and then project those biases onto the lawyers. Regardless of whether or not the players are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal behaviour, the players did all sorts of things that are downright sleazy and acted in ways decent people shouldn't.

The fact that 2 of 12 jurors had a bad opinion of the lawyers, potentially, doesn't really mean anything.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by blankall

Potentially. There's multiple posters in this thread who've made very disparaging remarks about the defence lawyers without actually ever having seen them in person. Without knowing what's happened, this is a pretty easy case to have a pre-existing bias on, and then project those biases onto the lawyers. Regardless of whether or not the players are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal behaviour, the players did all sorts of things that are downright sleazy and acted in ways decent people shouldn't.

The fact that 2 of 12 jurors had a bad opinion of the lawyers, potentially, doesn't really mean anything.

Your own bias shows through when you reduce the number to two jurors.

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.”

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

I agree it was total lunacy. People in stressful situations sometimes invent crazy scenarios. Unfortunately, I've seen it in the workplace with accusations like cameras, stalking, and kick-back conspiracies that have no basis in reality.

You mean when people start thinking they're being watched?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Your own bias shows through when you reduce the number to two jurors.

We don't even know if the juror who sent the note had permission from other jurors to do so or if they knew it would be read in front of everyone. Unless other jurors come forward and say the same thing publicly, I'm apprehensive to believe it. The whole idea that a defense attorney would make fun of jurors while in court is so absurd that I have a hard time believing anything else in the note.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

We don't even know if the juror who sent the note had permission from other jurors to do so or if they knew it would be read in front of everyone. Unless other jurors come forward and say the same thing publicly, I'm apprehensive to believe it. The whole idea that a defense attorney would make fun of jurors while in court is so absurd that I have a hard time believing anything else in the note.

Just a pet peeve: we don't have "attorneys" in Canada (other than local and assistant Crown Attorneys").

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

We don't even know if the juror who sent the note had permission from other jurors to do so or if they knew it would be read in front of everyone. Unless other jurors come forward and say the same thing publicly, I'm apprehensive to believe it. The whole idea that a defense attorney would make fun of jurors while in court is so absurd that I have a hard time believing anything else in the note.

Sure, but we can operate on what we actually know based on what was actually said and what decisions were actually made. The fact that people are making up scenarios or calling what happened absurd and casting doubt on why two juries were dismissed instead of just acknowledging the fact that the lawyer’s for ONE particular client were accused of being an issue TWICE during the trial, leading to a jury being dismissed both times (and one mistrial) is pretty notable.

Like we’re got people saying “I don’t believe that, I need proof!” while their version of the story as observers contains stuff they’ve just kind of made up for no reason. It’s a bit silly.