The Jury was out

by chuck woolery at 01:41 PM on June 28, 2004

I had the experience last week (for the first time) of prosecuting a case in front of a Jury. It was generally a neat experience, and one that I'm glad that I didn't have when I a more junior lawyer. Don't get me wrong, in the grand scheme of things I'm still a junior lawyer (coming up on 4 years as a lawyer), but at 6 months I would have had a terrifying experience, and instead at 4 years I had a mostly satisfying experience.

I can see that I will likely have quite a few jury trials over the next couple decades, so I'm glad that my first experience was positive. With that I'm more likely to look forward to, and be more comfortable in, my next experience.

My experience running a trial in front of a jury is much different from what most people reading this might expect.

Firstly, here in Canada we do juries differently (than in the US that is). We can't talk to the Jurors before or after they serve on the Jury. We only know their name and occupation. We can't ask them any questions during the Jury selection process. (Questions are possibkle, although rare, and require a court application before being able to ask them) Basically you look at them, and their occupation and say ok or not ok.

All of that means that Jury selection in Canada is a really, really dark art. Most lawyers act on the sort of widely held conceptions of classes of people etc to choose. For example it was suggested to me by a very experienced prosecutor to stear clear of teachers. Something to the effect of "they think they know everything, and they don't listen", coupled with the phrase "those who can, do, those that can't, teach". The chief prosecutor suggested I pick people with polished shoes, because it shows that they want to be there...

To make matters worse, the only feedback you get from a Jury is the verdict, guilty or not guilty, with no analysis. Unlike in the Martha Stewart case, the press cannot talk to members of a Jury in Canada, and Jurors cannot talk to them, or anyone else about their deliberations. With no feedback loop, there can be no progress, and reasons for decisions or perceptions of how things went, is simply information that is not available.

Not at all like Law and Order, or that new show the Jury (Which I like so far, even though I've only seen one episode).

To top the whole experience off, I got a hung Jury. On the main count, sexual assault, they couldn't make up their minds. and with that the trial on that charge ended in a mistrial (they acquitted the guy of the other count, forcible confinement)...

Hung juries are rare. The chief prosecutor here has never had one, and neither has any other prosecutor I've talked to (I'm sure some have, I just haven't talked to them). Which means I have to decide if I want to go through the whole trial again. A decision to be made over the next week or so.

So that's the condensed version of my first Jury experience. I usually try and end my posts with a question, so as to stimulate comments. I can't thnk of a question.