Dean Blundell producer in hot water for discussing jury duty

[colt]

I can't post a link right now but there is a story in the Toronto star that Dean Blundell's producer was jury foreman in a criminal trial where the accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault. The gist of the allegations is that the accused had sex with other men without disclosing his HIV status.

The Star story deals with how Blundell's producer talked about the case, on air, while the case was going on and after. In a manner typical of that particular show.

Defence counsel is asking for judicial review of some nature to see if the accused received a fair trial - his main complaint seems to be that the producer's comments allegedly demonstrate a bias against homosexuals and he had, before being empaneled, said he had no such bias.

The producer's comments are one thing but what really bothers me is that it is alleged that when the defence lawyer contacted the Crown about the comments the Crown is alleged to have told def counsel they were already aware of the comments and that a Crown and a police officer had already met with the producer and warned him further comments could jeopardize the case against the accused. Another Crown is quoted as saying there was not a "scintilla" of Crown misconduct.

If the meeting did actually take place how is that not misconduct? How can any lawyer, criminal or civil, think it is ok to have an ex parte conversation with a juror, and not tell opposing counsel about it?

It seems clear to me that the appropriate course of action would have been to inform the trial judge of the potential concern and let him or her decide how to deal with it.

If the Crown knew of a potential problem with a jury and did not tell the judge and then compounded the situation by speaking to the juror without the judge or def counsel present I cannot see how that is anything but blatant misconduct.

 

[TeasePlease]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...okes_about_trial_he_was_the_jury_foreman.html

Agreed. The Crown's conduct, as an officer of the court, is troubling.

Welsman is an idiot. He knew better, but succumbed to the pubescent stupidity of DBS. Now this rapist is going to waste scarce time and money with another trial, or possibly get off scot free.

 

[colt]

Here's the link:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...okes_about_trial_he_was_the_jury_foreman.html

Thanks

 

[acutus]

the appropriate course of action would have been to inform the trial judge of the potential concern and let him or her decide how to deal with it.

I agree, given the details outlined here. I have no idea who Dean Blundell is or anything else about this case. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[buttercup]

Now this rapist is going to waste scarce time and money with another trial, or possibly get off scot free.

You shouldn't call him a "rapist". The whole point of re-trials is that, if the guy was found guilty, but there was something wrong with the trial process, he might not be guilty after all. Until his re-trial is complete, or until it is determined that no re-trial is required, he is entitled to be regarded, once again, as a person who is wrongfully accused of rape.

 

[Aardvark154]

All I can say Colt is :frusty: !!

 

[Klute]

You shouldn't call him a "rapist". The whole point of re-trials is that, if the guy was found guilty, but there was something wrong with the trial process, he might not be guilty after all. Until his re-trial is complete, or until it is determined that no re-trial is required, he is entitled to be regarded, once again, as a person who is wrongfully accused of rape.

I'm not sure how you can read the facts and think he is a person who is wrongfully accused of rape.
His case may be appealed, there may be a new trial ordered, he may be acquitted, charges may be stayed or withdrawn but there is nothing in this scenario that says, "wrongfully accused of rape."

 

[colt]

All I can say Colt is :frusty: !!

It is the arrogance of the Crown, saying there was not a " scintilla" of prosecutorial misconduct that really galls me. It is very reminiscent of the problems that arise from Crowns screening prospective jurors and not seeing anything wrong with that.

 

[colt]

"Welsman ignored the judge’s instructions not to discuss the case with friends, family or colleagues during the trial.

On the radio program, which has been repeatedly sanctioned for homophobic and other discriminatory views, Welsman jawed about the case with the show’s hosts while the trial was ongoing. "


WTF !!!

I am also assuming that the Crown and police speaking to the juror was post-judgment. If it was during the trial then the Crown attorney should be disbarred.
.

I think it was mid-trial because the comment was that further comments by the juror might jeopardize the case.

 

[buttercup]

I'm not sure how you can read the facts and think he is a person who is wrongfully accused of rape.
His case may be appealed, there may be a new trial ordered, he may be acquitted, charges may be stayed or withdrawn but there is nothing in this scenario that says, "wrongfully accused of rape."

It is a basic rule of justice that an accused person is to be regarded as "innocent until proved guilty". Of course, that changes if the trial does indeed prove he is guilty, now the shoe is on the other foot.

But in the present case, the suggestion is that, because of this juror's behaviour, the trial was flawed, and therefore the guy should never have been found guilty. That being so, he has the right to be regarded, once more, as "innocent until proved guilty", i.e as a person who is wrongfully accused.

He should not be regarded as a rapist, i.e as a person who have been found guilty of rape - until he has been convicted at his second trial.

Perhaps the jury in his second trial will see the evidence differently, and will return a verdict of not guilty. That's why there are re-trials when the first trial is bad.

 

[acutus]

I'm not sure how you can read the facts and think he is a person who is wrongfully accused of rape.
His case may be appealed, there may be a new trial ordered, he may be acquitted, charges may be stayed or withdrawn but there is nothing in this scenario that says, "wrongfully accused of rape."

I agree and in my view, 'rape' just doesn't cover it. I would like to see sexual assult with violence, sexual assult with a weapon, attempted murder with intent, ( if such laws exist ), etc. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[afterhours]

I think it was mid-trial because the comment was that further comments by the juror might jeopardize the case.

I think they said "might jeopardize the conviction". Mid-trial comments were simply ass-fucking jokes. Post-judgment comments were disclosing deliberations, and he should have been charged for it instead of getting a warning from cops. Crown should have stayed far the fuck away from it.

 

[acutus]

I don't see anything 'Homophobic' about anything said in the clip I heard. In my view, this is a very good example of how far this 'political correctness' nonesense can go and how there is 'special rights' for 'special interest groups' or, as in this case, 'special rights' for Homosexuals. If the radio jocks had been joking around about the folks who enjoy sex with goats or other farm animals or the people who enjoy having their sexual partners vomit and defecate on them during sexual activities would there be the same level of out cry? I somehow doubt it. And in any event, what is so wrong with people speaking their mind on this or any issue freely and openly and without fear of sanctions or reprisal? If you don't like the opinion that is being expressed than don't listen to it.

For many people, myself included, this particular lifestyle behaviour has obvious negative consequences that simply speaks for itself and are readily apparent for any normal, reasonable adult persosn. If the radio jocks were mocking parts of the trial that are as a matter of fact a matter of public record and the trial has been concluded than I don't see any problem as far as any serious breach of Judicial procedure. On the point of special rights for special interest groups one could note that, to the best of my knowledge, us regular heterosexual folks are not allowed the same freedom the homosexuals have as far as their bath houses/brothels or whatever else one would want to call them. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

acutus, there is a general right of free speech that people have, but that right has limits placed on it when you become a juror.

In Canada jurors are forbidden to talk about their deliberations ever, even after the trial. This is different from the U.S. where jurors in major cases go on television and in some cases even get book deals.
It is an ancient principle that by keeping jury deliberations secret then the jurors can debate freely without any fear of repercussions once the trial is over. This is vital in cases against government officials and in cases where the issues are unpopular.


From what I read in the news report, it said "In a courtroom just weeks before the Sept. 30 broadcast on 102.1 The Edge, Welsman swore on a Bible that he had no bias towards homosexuals."

That makes me believe that there was a hearing during jury selection (voir dire) and a set of Parks questions were put to prospective jurors. The Parks questions deal with bias, usually around race, but in this case sexual orientation. If a juror lied under oath in that process it would be grounds for a new trial. If you were a prospective juror then I presume you would have answered those questions honestly with the views that you hold. You may have still ended up on the jury, but it would have been on a truthful basis.

It also appears that this juror spoke to other people about the case during the trial, that is not allowed and is grounds for a new trial.

Then there is the conduct of the Crown attorney. I still cannot believe that a Crown attorney spoke to a juror during trial. It is expressly forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct for any lawyer in a jury case to do that. It is grounds for disbarment and certainly would be grounds for an appeal. For the quick witted there is an exception for contact permitted by law, so that a lawyer can actually address the jury as a whole during the trial in the courtroom.

The Crown attorney concealing this information about a juror is also forbidden. Again the Rules of Professional Conduct are clear that in any case where a lawyer becomes aware of an issue with a juror they advise the judge. That's it, the judge. They do not get a cop, presumably with a side-arm, to secretly meet with the juror and advise the juror what to do.

Leaving the actions of the juror aside for a moment, the more and more I think about this it is the conduct of the Crown that is far worse. The juror can plead stupidity, the Crown attorney damn well knows better and did it anyway.

The first step would have to be a judicial inquiry into the conduct of the Crown and the juror. The problem could be that the judge declares himself without jurisdiction since the verdict is complete and the jury discharged. I am not expert in post-jury inquiries so someone else may better know the exact procedure.

Ultimately it goes to the Court of Appeal with a fresh evidence application.

I understand that the the rules for jurors are different in the U.S. than they are here. My point was that here in Canada, one is not even allowed to make fun of Homosexuals. Mr. Blundell may have truthfully swore out an oath that he has no bias or prejudice against Homosexuals, but that shouldn't mean that he is then therefore forever prevented from making fun of them. I can think of no other special interest minority group that feels they have 'special rights' above and beyond everyone else to such an extent that mere ridicule and mockery of their lifestyle and behaviour is enough for them to believe that they have legal protections sufficient enough to try and silence those who engage in the ridicule and mockery of their behaviour. In my view, a very dangerous precedent is being set that jeopardises everyone's right to freedom of expression and speech beyond a Judicial context. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[TeasePlease]

I understand that the the rules for jurors are different in the U.S. than they are here. My point was that here in Canada, one is not even allowed to make fun of Homosexuals. Mr. Blundell may have truthfully swore out an oath that he has no bias or prejudice against Homosexuals, but that shouldn't mean that he is then therefore forever prevented from making fun of them. I can think of no other special interest minority group that feels they have 'special rights' above and beyond everyone else to such an extent that mere ridicule and mockery of their lifestyle and behaviour is enough for them to believe that they have legal protections sufficient enough to try and silence those who engage in the ridicule and mockery of their behaviour. In my view, a very dangerous precedent is being set that jeopardises everyone's right to freedom of expression and speech beyond a Judicial context. Sincerely, Jon .

You miss the point. Putting aside the discussion of "harmless fun" (as even the accused/convicted said, he holds no ill will towards Blundell et all because they are simply pandering to their audience. And, for all we know, they are just playing a character for entertainment.)

The big picture issue lies with two points:

1. The principle of confidentiality in jury deliberations. It's there for specific reasons.

2. If you were the accused, would you want to take the chance that a juror is biased or discriminatory? How would you feel?

I don't know who you are, but let's assume that you're an upper-class (the "1%") caucasian male. Let's also assume that you've been charged with fraud and are standing in a jury trial. how would you feel if you overhead your jury foreman making comments about "crackers" oppressing the common man, living in luxury at the expense of the poor?

 

[Aardvark154]

Further to everything else that has been written is the quite basic point if as a juror you ignore such a basic instruction from the judge as not to discuss the case outside court, how on earth can anyone be sure that you are paying the slightest attention to any of the other jury instructions?

 

[Klute]

It is a basic rule of justice that an accused person is to be regarded as "innocent until proved guilty". Of course, that changes if the trial does indeed prove he is guilty, now the shoe is on the other foot.

But in the present case, the suggestion is that, because of this juror's behaviour, the trial was flawed, and therefore the guy should never have been found guilty. That being so, he has the right to be regarded, once more, as "innocent until proved guilty", i.e as a person who is wrongfully accused.

He should not be regarded as a rapist, i.e as a person who have been found guilty of rape - until he has been convicted at his second trial.

Perhaps the jury in his second trial will see the evidence differently, and will return a verdict of not guilty. That's why there are re-trials when the first trial is bad.

You really do not see that you are clueless on the topic but try to speak with authority. He is not wrongfully accused. Perhaps you might be thinking he was wrongfully convicted. But even that is a stretch. The guy can appeal the conviction. I hardly count him in same category as the likes of Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard or Donald Marshal Jr.

Buttercup - you take a basic knowledge of the law and try to act like an authority. Don't quit your day job just yet. It is likely a new trial will be ordered but the I don't think the article mentions if appeal has been filed yet.

 

[Boss Nass]

I wouldn't worry about the guy getting a fair trial if this stuff was on the DBS. Few people with a mental age over 15 listen to it anyway.

 

[TeasePlease]

I wouldn't worry about the guy getting a fair trial if this stuff was on the DBS. Few people with a mental age over 15 listen to it anyway.

That's the problem. Juries are made up of people who are too dumb to get out of it.

 

[mur11]

I understand that the the rules for jurors are different in the U.S. than they are here. My point was that here in Canada, one is not even allowed to make fun of Homosexuals. Mr. Blundell may have truthfully swore out an oath that he has no bias or prejudice against Homosexuals, but that shouldn't mean that he is then therefore forever prevented from making fun of them. I can think of no other special interest minority group that feels they have 'special rights' above and beyond everyone else to such an extent that mere ridicule and mockery of their lifestyle and behaviour is enough for them to believe that they have legal protections sufficient enough to try and silence those who engage in the ridicule and mockery of their behaviour. In my view, a very dangerous precedent is being set that jeopardises everyone's right to freedom of expression and speech beyond a Judicial context. Sincerely, Jon .

I enjoy how you ignored all the intelligent and accurate legal knowledge provided by joe, and instead used it as an excuse to express your virulent and pathetic hatred towards homosexuals, and their 'agenda'
True troll maneuver