Dean Blundell producer in hot water for discussing jury duty

[afterhours]

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?

That would not really matter after the verdict though. The jury is not under obligation to act judicially while deliberating. They can toss a coin for all we know and the verdict will remain unassailable. http://canlii.ca/t/g15r6

PS- I don't understand why it is that so many lawyers here do not get it that the Crown spoke to the juror after the verdict when the jury is functus.

 

[Aardvark154]

That would not really matter after the verdict though.

However, I based my comments upon the original post

The Star story deals with how Blundell's producer talked about the case, on air, while the case was going on and after.

Using up my limited number of per-month views of the Toronto Star merely for this did not seem a high personal priority when it appeared the above was a synopsis of the facts.

The jury is not under obligation to act judicially while deliberating. They can toss a coin for all we know and the verdict will remain unassailable. http://canlii.ca/t/g15r6

First I don't believe the decision you cite supports this statement.+ Further this certainly isn't the case in the U.S.* the fact that the jury is known to have violated their instructions such as considering factors not presented into evidence in trial would very much form valid reasons for requesting that the verdict be set aside.

+ The Decision actually seems to largely support Colt's post.

* Most of the English cases cited postdate U.S. Independence.

 

[afterhours]

First I don't believe the decision you cite supports this statement. Further this certainly isn't the case in the U.S.* the fact that the jury is known to have violated their instructions such as considering factors not presented into evidence in trial would very much form valid reasons for requesting that the verdict be set aside.

* Most of the English cases cited postdate U.S. Independence.

check it out
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4509105?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21103096736967

not sure what would happen if there was extrinsic evidence of jury misconduct (e.g. third party observing through a window), but jurors' evidence would surely not be admissible in Canada or England, so for all intents and purposes they can do whatever the fuck they want in their closed room, and the accused will have to live with the verdict.
Granted, it's different in US http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-04-25/news/0004260162_1_toss-coin-murder-or-manslaughter

 

[Aardvark154]

Probably because it is the system with which I'm familiar, but while I fully agree that the reasoning behind the jury's decision and the jury's deliberations should be confidential, I don't like the idea that even though the court is advised of blatant juror misconduct the court will not inquire into it, and the verdict will not be set aside.

(Older is sometimes better )




Thanks Joe for the Star information

 

[acutus]

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?

There may be many points to be missed or taken from the case presented... I have no problem with someone playing a character for entertainment. My understanding of the case was that the matter had been resolved and so there was/is no need to protect the details presented in Court as the transcripts of the proceedings should be available as a matter of Public Record providing that there has not been a Court ordered publication ban. In the scenario presented, with no publication ban in effect, I see no problem with a juror expressing his point of view openly on the trial or finding the humor/absurdity/comedy/sadness/horror/disgust/etc. in the details of the case. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

Since you are talking about discriminatory language in general and not in the context of a juror then I would suggest that there is a large body of legal precedent that says differently.

From the hate crime provisions of criminal code, the human rights code, and an abundance of case law in employment cases dealing with a poisoned work environment. There have been many groups that have pressed for and succeeded in having such discriminatory conduct and language made unacceptable not only in law, but also by most people in general social situations.

For myself I would find such a comments made in front of me towards any group (and no I will not list them all) to be unacceptable and would tell the person that their comments are disgusting. Yes, I have done so in the past. Would I rise to the level of violence probably not (unless the comment was directed at my child at which point all bets are off as to what happens).

I would hope acutus that you are not merely being a troll.
I would hope that you are expressing how you feel and that you can think about how such comments effect the lives of others.
It is not that there is one comment, it is that such comments, which appear to you as minor, continue over and over day after day, so that they take a toll on those that hear them.

Consider why you have a need to mock or make fun on anyone.
Why and how is injuring another beneficial to yourself? That is a genuine question that I pose to you.

In my view, there is a big difference between discriminatory conduct- and- language. You are completely within your rights to express disagreement with another point of view or expression just as you are absolutely within your rights to ignore a point of view that you disagree with. I've been called a troll before on this site just as I've been acussed of being 'ignorant', bigoted' and 'hateful' for expressing a dissenting point of view on whether or not homosexual behaviour/lifestyle is 'good' and 'healthy' and 'normal'. I am far more concerned about the conduct of others than I am about what they say. If the Homo folks are going to try and silence and damage or destroy the lives of anyone who won't express support for their behaviour and lifestyle then they should, in my view, at least be aware of the sad irony in the mantra the Homosexual community has always preached; which, they say, is tolerance of others; the way others live their of lives and everyone's right to speak and express themselves openly and freely. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[checks]

I think the bigger issue is that enough people actually listen to this assclown's show to have made this an issue at all. I'd find Blundell mildly entertaining if I was 15 years old. I'm pretty sure whatever was said on air about any kind of court proceeding would have been lost on the majority of his audience. They'd probably get all annoyed at the lack of talk of boobies and farts and whatnot. I find it hard to believe that people who can generate intelligent responses to this very issue actually listen to the Dean Blundell show.

 

[TeasePlease]

I disagree. From a carriage of justice perspective, it wouldn't matter if DBS had an audience one 1 or 1 million. The issue is the possible bias of a juror.

Acutus - The matter is resolved and whatever evidence was tendered in open court is now a matter of public record. But that isn't the point. Jury deliberations are supposed to remain confidential because the current thinking (in Canada) is that we don't want to know how the sausage is made. All we need to know is the verdict.

Let me ask - is free speech on the part of a jury member more important than the right to a fair trial for the accused?

 

[fuji]

There may be many points to be missed or taken from the case presented... I have no problem with someone playing a character for entertainment. My understanding of the case was that the matter had been resolved and so there was/is no need to protect the details presented in Court as the transcripts of the proceedings should be available as a matter of Public Record providing that there has not been a Court ordered publication ban. In the scenario presented, with no publication ban in effect, I see no problem with a juror expressing his point of view openly on the trial or finding the humor/absurdity/comedy/sadness/horror/disgust/etc. in the details of the case. Sincerely, Jon .

Re-read Joe's posts. He has carefully explained the problem. You don't get it. More likely you are, as usual, trolling.

 

[fuji]

In my view, there is a big difference between discriminatory conduct- and- language. You are completely within your rights to express disagreement with another point of view or expression just as you are absolutely within your rights to ignore a point of view that you disagree with. I've been called a troll before on this site just as I've been acussed of being 'ignorant', bigoted' and 'hateful' for expressing a dissenting point of view on whether or not homosexual behaviour/lifestyle is 'good' and 'healthy' and 'normal'. I am far more concerned about the conduct of others than I am about what they say. If the Homo folks are going to try and silence and damage or destroy the lives of anyone who won't express support for their behaviour and lifestyle then they should, in my view, at least be aware of the sad irony in the mantra the Homosexual community has always preached; which, they say, is tolerance of others; the way others live their of lives and everyone's right to speak and express themselves openly and freely. Sincerely, Jon .

You are a bigot. You are clearly bigoted against homosexuals. You effectively say so yourself right here, so why not be honest.

You are saying "I think bigots should be tolerated"

 

[acutus]

I think the bigger issue is that enough people actually listen to this assclown's show to have made this an issue at all. I'd find Blundell mildly entertaining if I was 15 years old. I'm pretty sure whatever was said on air about any kind of court proceeding would have been lost on the majority of his audience.

lol... I'm inclined to agree; however, in my view, the more offensive, ignorant, repugnant, etc. an individual or groups of individual's point of view is, the truer the test of freedom of speech and expression is- for everyone. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

I disagree. From a carriage of justice perspective, it wouldn't matter if DBS had an audience one 1 or 1 million. The issue is the possible bias of a juror.

Acutus - The matter is resolved and whatever evidence was tendered in open court is now a matter of public record. But that isn't the point. Jury deliberations are supposed to remain confidential because the current thinking (in Canada) is that we don't want to know how the sausage is made. All we need to know is the verdict.

Let me ask - is free speech on the part of a jury member more important than the right to a fair trial for the accused?

Your question is, in my view, a salient one. From what I understand about the case, Mr. Blundell did his civic duty and for all we know was forthright when stating that he had no particular bias towards homosexuals or their behaviour; however, this does not necessarily exclude personal beliefs or opinion regarding a defendant's conduct as charged in the complaint. For example, would we support a prosecutor or defence council questioning a prospective juror as to whether or not he or she had any biases towards, say, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.? That prospective juror could very well answer truthfully in saying, no, they don't, although they may in fact have a moral or ethical opinion on the particular conduct brought forward in the complaint. I don't have a problem with a juror discussing their experiences or point of view while they served as a juror providing that the matter has been concluded and there is no publication ban in place to protect innocent or incidental parties involved in the case. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

Re-read Joe's posts. He has carefully explained the problem. You don't get it. More likely you are, as usual, trolling.

I'm confident that Mr. Joe_in_the_Lounge understands my post well enough, even if you don't. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[acutus]

You are a bigot. You are clearly bigoted against homosexuals. You effectively say so yourself right here, so why not be honest.

You are saying "I think bigots should be tolerated"

I am not 'bigoted' against homosexuals. I happen not to support nor condone homosexual behaviour. I've been clear and forthright about expressing my perspective candidly on this issue here on this site. Yes, I'm saying bigots, or Nazi's or pedophiles or Homosexuals or terrorists or serial killers, etc. should be free to express their point of view as openly and freely as anyone else. Refer to Post #: 37 and review as required. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[TeasePlease]

I'm sure all the "Homo folks" appreciate your inclusiveness. LOL.

 

[acutus]

I'm sure all the "Homo folks" appreciate your inclusiveness. LOL.

They should. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[fuji]

I am not 'bigoted' against homosexuals. I happen not to support nor condone homosexual behaviour.

You are a bigot, and the worst thing is you aren't even honest about it. If you openly confessed to being the bigot you are, at least then you would be genuine. Disagreeable, repulsive even, but at least genuine.

Actually you are insincere, your signature is a lie.

 

[acutus]

You are a bigot, and the worst thing is you aren't even honest about it. If you openly confessed to being the bigot you are, at least then you would be genuine. Disagreeable, repulsive even, but at least genuine.

Actually you are insincere, your signature is a lie.

Refer to Post #'s : 37 and 40. Review as required. Perhaps you should ask another member here for help comprehending what is clearly and directly expressed in these posts. Sincerely, Jon .

 

[fuji]

Refer to Post #'s : 37 and 40. Review as required. Perhaps you should ask another member here for help comprehending what is clearly and directly expressed in these posts. Sincerely, Jon .

Surrey but fake denials don't cut it.

 

[acutus]

Surrey but fake denials don't cut it.

Surrey...? Other members here can decide for themselves the value of your contributions to this discussion. By the way, if I'm a 'liar', 'bigot', 'disagreeable', 'repulsive', etc., then why do you follow me around the site posting after me...? What is it that you find so compelling about my point of view here...? Sincerely, Jon .