We didn’t get that. But we did get little stickers we were supposed to put on our shirts that said we were a juror. That way if we left the juror holding room to go somewhere else in the building (like the coffee stand in the lobby) lawyers would see we were a juror and not talk about cases in our presence.
We had a side room with vending machines and a TV. But I think it was on CNN.
When I’ve had jury duty, the main waiting room had a TV, but no cable. Good grief, daytime television programming is mind-destroying. Thank goodness I had books to read.
May I ask what you mean by that? Why would they be able to tell by looking that they didn’t want you?
Myself as well. I have had to call the number several times, but it is almost always ‘no need to report’…
Once in Texas I was called for a traffic ticket that the guy was taking to trial, but when I answered honestly about my dislike of law enforcement, they struck me.
Since then, some of my viewpoints have been changed, and I am now a dream juror, if they actually want someone who is interested and attentive, and at least as intelligent as the average bear, and a bit more as to comprehending vocabulary and discounting passion over fact…
However, I was once selected, and was forced to submit my proof of purchased plane tickets to get out of it. It was unfortunate, as I have always wanted to be in a jury- my job also pays my full wage if I sign over the check issued by the court.
It was a murder trial that I later found out was pretty much an open and shut case, and apparently was rather famous. It turns out that while I hadn’t heard of it, it was very well known and famous in my city, so I was likely most attractive to both sides because I had absolutely no knowledge of the case…
So eventually, I would really appreciate doing one.
You know how you get selected as foreman? When everyone troops into the jury room, and is sitting there not saying anything or making eye contact, pipe up and say, “Well, the judge said the first thing we should do is select a foreman.” Then everyone’s head will swivel towards you and they’ll say, “I think we just did.”
I’ve been called for jury duty three times and served on three juries, all of which went to deliberation.
I’d suggest that in Canada, we do not use juries as often as our American friends do for civil matters. Generally speaking, civil matters that make it to court (and the vast majority do not–they settle first), are decided in front of a judge. Jury trials in civil matters are certainly possible, but infrequent. But with juries used as often as they seem to be in civil matters in the United States, it makes sense that Americans would be called more often, and we Canadians would be called less.
As a Canadian lawyer, I concur with Northern Piper’s remarks about jury trials, the Criminal Code, and the Constitution. Indeed, I can confirm that the substance of his remarks are taught in first-year criminal law courses at Canadian law schools–but sadly, they don’t do it quite as succinctly. (Nicely explained, NP!)
To answer one of your earlier questions, md2000, I’ve been called twice for jury duty. But both were before I attended law school. You may be interested in knowing that in Canada, lawyers are not allowed to sit on juries. So, we’re not asked to; and if by chance we are, we’re excused once we inform the authorities of our status.
I’ve served on both petit and grand juries, one each. We got $5 per day and free parking.
For petit jury, one just calls the night before to see if you need to show up at all. If you do have to come in, if you’re not called by about noon, you’re done for the day.
I’ve always wanted to be called for jury duty. But I am a lawyer. We are certainly allowed to sit on a jury, but what other lawyer wants me in her jury pool… potentially poisoning the well? I would assuredly be struck from the panel. LAME!
In Ohio, lawyers can be and frequently are called to serve on juries. I even know a sitting judge who served as a juror in another judge’s courtroom (he was chosen as foreman and led the jury to a conviction, which surprised most courthouse observers, as he’s a notorious liberal). Unusual for a judge to thus serve, and there are special jury instructions for it, but it happens. Most occupational exemptions were thrown out by the Ohio legislature 15+ years ago.
I’ve only been called to serve on a jury just once since 1984, and turns out they didn’t need me. Too bad. I’ve love to serve someday and see what happens on the inside of the jury deliberation room.
It makes me wonder- I just looked at the outcome of the case for which I was selected and had to bow out, and the 16 year old, being tried as an adult, was given 50-life.
I wonder if I would have made a difference, as I can’t see that much of a penalty for this underage boy, even if it was murder. It just throws any possibility of rehabilitation out of the window, and the facts do NOT seem to fit 1st degree to me.
Of course, I didn’t sit, so there obviously could have been information that I was/am not privy to…
But Piper says that we have a right to a jury trial in any criminal matter, while the government of Canada itself disagrees:
Trial By Jury
Most civil cases in Canada are tried by judges without a jury. However,
•anyone charged with a criminal offence for which there can be a prison sentence of five years or more has the right to a trial by jury,
•in some cases, a person charged with a criminal offence for which there can be a prison sentence of less than five years may have the right to choose a trial by jury, and
•some civil cases can also be tried by judge and jury.
IANAL, so maybe my reading of simple legalese is wrong; but if you have a right to a jury trial where the sentence is 5 years or more, you DO NOT have a right if the sentence is LESS THAN 5 YEARS. This is what all the literature seems to indicate, yet legal beagles of the maple leaf variety seem to be telling me I am wrong. When was the last jury trial you attended where the crime was less than 5 years maximum sentence possible, yet there was a jury? What are the “in some cases”???
This is the change Trudeau (or his minions) brought in in the 1970’s. They took away the right to a jury trial for the majority of crimes.
This is what is different than in the land of the free and the home of the brave - we do not allow jury trials for simple crimes like break and enter, theft, DUI, etc. People do not choose trial by judge, so much as they have no choice.
So - simple question - if a Canadian is charged with a crime, maximum sentence less than 5 years, do they have the right to a jury trial? If so, when was the last time you saw/attended/directly heard of one?
Summary conviction matters. Trial by jury is always possible in indictable matters.
Sure we do–if the Crown elects to charge the accused with an indictable offense. Some of the things you listed are “hybrids,” and the Crown can choose to proceed either way. If the Crown elects to proceed summarily (IIRC, with a max 6 months jail or a max $5000 fine, or both), there can be a trial, but it won’t be a jury trial. If, for the same offense, the Crown elects to proceed on an indictable offense, then even if the Crown is seeking a punishment of less than five years, the accused can have a jury trial.
Is the Crown proceeding summarily or via an indictable offense? It is impossible to answer your question without first answering mine.
Also, I think you’re incorrect in what you believe as regards the changes you claim Trudeau made. Could we have a cite to back up your claim that, “Trudeau (or his minions) … took away the right to a jury trial for the majority of crimes”, please?
No, Piper did not say that we have a right to a jury trial in any criminal matter. Piper said that in cases where the Crown proceeds by indictment, the accused has a right to a jury trial. Piper was careful to draw the distinction between summary conviction matters (where the penalty is not more than six months’ imprisonment) and indictable matters. Piper also pointed that for indictable matters, s. 471 of the Code is the starting point: there will be a jury trial, unless the accused chooses not to have one.
On the other hand, Piper does not know why he has started referring to himself in the third person. Piper will stop that now.
[QUOTE=md2000]
IANAL, so maybe my reading of simple legalese is wrong; but if you have a right to a jury trial where the sentence is 5 years or more, you DO NOT have a right if the sentence is LESS THAN 5 YEARS. This is what all the literature seems to indicate, yet legal beagles of the maple leaf variety seem to be telling me I am wrong. When was the last jury trial you attended where the crime was less than 5 years maximum sentence possible, yet there was a jury? What are the “in some cases”???
[/QUOTE]
You can have rights under the Constitution, and you can also have rights under statutes passed by Parliament. The Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial where the potential sentence is more than five years. The Criminal Code, a statute passed by Parliament, provides that you have a right to a jury trial in any case where the Crown proceeds by indictment. There is no contradiction there. Parliament has provided a statutory right to a jury trial which is broader than the constitutional right.
[QUOTE=md2000]
So - simple question - if a Canadian is charged with a crime, maximum sentence less than 5 years, do they have the right to a jury trial?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, if the Crown is proceeding by way of indictment, as set out in s. 471, which I quoted earlier:
There can be exceptions, based on specific provisions of the Code, but s. 471 sets out the general principle.
I don’t practise in the criminal courts, so I have no direct knowledge of the frequency of jury trials in criminal matters. However, your question is raising a different issue: how often do accuseds exercise their right to a jury trial? That’s a different question from whether there is a right to a jury trial, which is how this discussion got started.
[QUOTE=md2000]
This is the change Trudeau (or his minions) brought in in the 1970’s. They took away the right to a jury trial for the majority of crimes.
[/quote]
Okay, I’ve provided two lengthy posts with several citations to the Constitution and the Criminal Code in support of my argument. Now it’s your turn. Instead of just repeating that Trudeau did this, please provide a cite to support your argument.
As someone who is trying to follow along:
What is the difference between “summary conviction” and “by indictment”? The former does not sound like a trial of any kind, jury or not – it sounds like a declaration of guilt. Is it what would be called in the US a “bench trial” (judge acts as jury to find guilt or not)?
Also, Northern Piper, in Post #17, you say this.
How does this square with this other cite?
It sounds like there are at least some offenses with penalties of up to five years where a jury trial might not be available to a defendant. I understand none of these address the question of what Trudeau did or didn’t do to change the rules, but I’m trying to understand the seeming time discrepancy.
I’ll admit, I was hoping for an experience more like this.
No. Let’s see if I can put it simply.
If the Crown is proceeding summarily, seeking a maximum punishment of six months imprisonment and/or a maximum $5000 fine: The Crown proceeds summarily, and no jury trial is likely (see * below). Any trial that occurs will, in most cases, be in front of a judge only.
If the Crown chooses to proceed on indictment, in cases where the offense is “hybrid” (as explained above) and the Crown is seeking a maximum punishment of up to (key words: “up to,” meaning anywhere from zero to five years) five years imprisonment, the Accused can choose (elect) to have a jury trial. But it is the Accused’s choice.
If the Crown must proceed on indictment (as with s. 469 offenses, such as murder), the Accused has a right to a jury trial. All he or she need do is ask for one; it will be provided. The Accused may, if he or she chooses, have a judge-only trial; but again, it is the Accused’s choice.
To sum up: If the Crown proceeds with an indictable charge of any sort, the accused can always elect trial by jury. Only if the Crown proceeds summarily, does the Accused not have the right to be tried by jury.
The first time I had jury duty was in Chicago, late 70s, when you served for two weeks and it was possible to get picked for several trials during that time. I was picked for a jury, but by the time the whole jury was selected it was late enough in the day that the judge decided to not start the trial until the next morning. We were told to report directly to the courtroom, and once everyone was there we were told that the two sides had reached a settlement overnight. After all these years I can’t remember any details about the case, and we weren’t given any details about the settlement, so I can’t say how the mere selection of the jury affected either side.
But at least it broke up the boredom of sitting around and waiting for your number to be called.
That is a bitchin’ exhibit!
It’s a poor choice of words by Parliament, in my opinion. A better term would be “summary proceedings.” What it means is that the summary process is shorter than when the Crown proceeds by indictment. Notably, when the Crown proceeds summarily, the accused does not have a right to a preliminary inquiry, nor a right to a jury. This is balanced against the fact that the accused isn’t facing more than six months imprisonment. It’s a trial in front of a Provincial Court judge, sitting alone, no jury. But it’s a full trial, not an automatic conviction. The Crown must prove all elements of the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent. The accused can raise any defences that are available, including any constitutional issues that might lead to the exclusion of evidence. The Provincial Court judge has all the benefits of judicial independence, and makes the decision based on the evidence presented. If the Crown doesn’t prove a particular element of the charges, the accused is acquitted.
Setting aside the issue of military tribunals for service members, s. 11(f) of the Charter provides that anyone who is facing a charge that carries imprisonment of five years has a right to a jury trial. That’s the constitutional minimum.
However, Parliament has provided a more generous right to a jury trial in the Criminal Code. There, it says that anyone charged by way of indictment normally has the right to a jury trial. There are some specific exceptions to that provision in some offences in the Criminal Code, but that’s the general rule. So there’s no contradiction there: The Charter sets five years as the constitutionally entrenched right to a jury trial, and Parliament has provided that in cases where the offence carries a potential punishment of more than six months (the starting point for indictable charges), the accused has a statutory right to a jury trial.
We watched Law and Order.
Minor quibble: for the s. 469 offences, the accused and the Crown have to agree to trial by judge alone. The accused doesn’t have an automatic election for non-jury trial for those offences. See s. 473(1) of the Code.
[QUOTE=]
To sum up: If the Crown proceeds with an indictable charge of any sort, the accused can always elect trial by jury. Only if the Crown proceeds summarily, does the Accused not have the right to be tried by jury.
[/QUOTE]
Another minor quibble: There are a few matters where the Crown can proceed by indictment, but the punishment is less than five years, and within the absolute jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, so no right to a jury, even though it’s by indictment. See s. 553 of the Code. The most common of those is theft under $5,000, where the Crown can proceed by indictment in the Provincial Court. The other offences in that list aren’t very common, and none of them are that serious, hence the absolute jurisdiction of the Provincial Court.
[QUOTE=Spoons]
I have to disagree with you on this, Spoons. I’m not aware of any process for a jury trial on a summary matter.