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

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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

We have Powers of Attorney, which is confusing for laypeople.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

I don't buy that because one of the lawyers may have passively talked to a juror that it makes any outlandish claim more likely. It's absurd because it is absurd. Even if it is true that more than one juror felt that way, it would be a ridiculous defense strategy to try to get the jurors to dislike you. The fact that sending a note to the judge would be an unpredictable result of the actions, let alone dismissing the jury mid-trial is so rare, I can't accept that it was a strategy. For sure if someone is going to make outlandish claims, I would want proof. Like if I see a man across the street and later I see wolf, I would need solid proof that the man was a werewolf before I believed it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't buy that because one of the lawyers may have passively talked to a juror that it makes any outlandish claim more likely. It's absurd because it is absurd. Even if it is true that more than one juror felt that way, it would be a ridiculous defense strategy to try to get the jurors to dislike you. The fact that sending a note to the judge would be an unpredictable result of the actions, let alone dismissing the jury mid-trial is so rare, I can't accept that it was a strategy. For sure if someone is going to make outlandish claims, I would want proof. Like if I see a man across the street and later I see wolf, I would need solid proof that the man was a werewolf before I believed it.

Who said it was a strategy?

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't buy that because one of the lawyers may have passively talked to a juror that it makes any outlandish claim more likely. It's absurd because it is absurd. Even if it is true that more than one juror felt that way, it would be a ridiculous defense strategy to try to get the jurors to dislike you. The fact that sending a note to the judge would be an unpredictable result of the actions, let alone dismissing the jury mid-trial is so rare, I can't accept that it was a strategy. For sure if someone is going to make outlandish claims, I would want proof. Like if I see a man across the street and later I see wolf, I would need solid proof that the man was a werewolf before I believed it.

I have no problem believing that some lawyers look down on others and make fun of them. I bet the lawyers were caught off guard when multiple jurors picked up on it. I don't believe it was a strategy. It was unprofessional behaviour which exists with lawyers, too.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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

Attorney is a technically correct term in Canada. It's just not commonly used among us, as opposed to "lawyer" or "counsel". And we say "local and assistant Crown attorneys" even less.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

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

I actually misread Pepsi's post as "jurors".

I think my point still stands, these guys are sleazy. Getting a random group of people to make a judgement on them without bias would be a struggle.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

I have no problem believing that some lawyers look down on others and make fun of them. I bet the lawyers were caught off guard when multiple jurors picked up on it. I don't believe it was a strategy. It was unprofessional behaviour which exists with lawyers, too.

All the legal experts that I read who commented on it don't seem to believe what was described in the note actually would have happened. I couldn't find any that said, yeah, that's a thing that's plausible.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

All the legal experts that I read who commented on it don't seem to believe what was described in the note actually would have happened. I couldn't find any that said, yeah, that's a thing that's plausible.

I’ve seen lawyers behave pretty badly in court but not in a trial of this magnitude.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’ve seen lawyers behave pretty badly in court but not in a trial of this magnitude.

Sure, I wouldn't be surprised.

One of the legal experts that commented said it isn't unusual for lawyers to smile and joke around with each other in between whistles, which could be misinterpreted or even be considered bad taste by a juror in a solemn courtroom. Even if they were looking at the juror and snickering, the fact the juror immediately projects that to be making fun of his or her appearance suggests to me that the person has their own internal hang ups. Like how would they know that? I think the same person also said that losing the jury hurts the defense more than it helps, assuming the jury was going to be unbiased.

[CliffFletcher]

It’s easier for me to believe one or two among 14 random members of the public are a bit flakey, than two experienced trial lawyers in a high-profile case acting like jackasses in front of a judge and jury.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s easier for me to believe one or two among 14 random members of the public are a bit flakey, than two experienced trial lawyers in a high-profile case acting like jackasses in front of a judge and jury.

Lawyers are often type A people who get themselves all worked up and can't control themselves anymore

Me guess is the truth is somewhere in the middle though. Likely a combination of bad behavior and bias. Who knows, maybe even strategic? These guys stand a better chance in front of a judge than in front of a jury.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s easier for me to believe one or two among 14 random members of the public are a bit flakey, than two experienced trial lawyers in a high-profile case acting like jackasses in front of a judge and jury.

Multiple jurors felt that way. At a minimum it was 2 and as many as 14. Your bias is suggesting 1 or 2.

Experienced trial lawyers can still be jackasses. If that's what they are, people pick up on it.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by blankall

Lawyers are often type A people who get themselves all worked up and can't control themselves anymore

Me guess is the truth is somewhere in the middle though. Likely a combination of bad behavior and bias. Who knows, maybe even strategic? These guys stand a better chance in front of a judge than in front of a jury.

Query why they chose trial by jury then?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Multiple jurors felt that way. At a minimum it was 2 and as many as 14. Your bias is suggesting 1 or 2.

Experienced trial lawyers can still be jackasses. If that's what they are, people pick up on it.

Are we just going to ignore that the judge said they didn't see any evidence of inappropriate behaviour from Formenton's legal team?

Carroccia said she had not seen any behavior that would cause her concern

https://www.espn.com/olympics/hockey...l-assault-case

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Are we just going to ignore that the judge said they didn't see any evidence of inappropriate behaviour from Formenton's legal team?



https://www.espn.com/olympics/hockey...l-assault-case

Is it like TV where the judge is the last one to enter the room? (then they wouldn't have been present)

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Is it like TV where the judge is the last one to enter the room? (then they wouldn't have been present)

I don't believe the jury is ever present without the judge, but happy to be corrected on that by the number of people on here that are actual experts, not just like us armchair folks.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Query why they chose trial by jury then?

They may have misjudged things. Then changed their minds upon seeing the way the jury was reacting. They certainly didn't put up a fight when the jury was getting dismissed.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I don't believe the jury is ever present without the judge, but happy to be corrected on that by the number of people on here that are actual experts, not just like us armchair folks.

Yup that makes sense - I was just picturing everyone in there waiting for the "all rise" pageantry, but of course you're right that the jury comes in after that

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Query why they chose trial by jury then?

Originally Posted by blankall

They may have misjudged things. Then changed their minds upon seeing the way the jury was reacting. They certainly didn't put up a fight when the jury was getting dismissed.

I came to say basically this. I am thinking that at the outset they may have thought the defense of 'Boys will be Boys' and that they're Junior Heroes in a Hockey-crazy town would work...and when it didn't appear to be maybe changed their minds?

But thats just spitballing, blankall is right though, they went through two Juries and didn't seem all that broken up about it.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Multiple jurors felt that way. At a minimum it was 2 and as many as 14. Your bias is suggesting 1 or 2.

Experienced trial lawyers can still be jackasses. If that's what they are, people pick up on it.

Again, ONE note from ONE juror stated that multiple jurors felt that way.

It is inconceivable that the two lawyers would intentionally do anything that could even possibly be perceived as making fun of a juror. Could they have been laughing and joking as the jury was allowed in? Sure. Could the juror have misinterpreted this conduct as being directed at them? Sure. Could the juror then have written a note exaggerating the situation? Sure.

Other than that, we don't 'know' anything.