I find that very interesting. Would you be allowed to participate as a juror, having served as court officer on prior occasions? In Manitoba, anyone involved in or employed by the justice system cannot serve on juries.
Thanks for the welcome Northern Piper and Spoons.
Actually my second go-round. Lost all my old profile and info a while back. Then had kids. A little more free time these days…
You may want to get in touch with an Admin, such as Tuba Diva. As you may recall, second accounts are frowned upon, but she can help straighten things out.
In an interesting turn of events, I was at the local courthouse today and found that the verdict was going to be handed down in a recent second-degree murder trial. This is an indictable matter, and the accused had elected trial by a judge alone.
Because I was interested, I dealt with the matter I was at the courthouse for, and then managed to squeeze into the public gallery to hear the verdict in the second-degree murder trial. The judge carefully read through the evidence, stated the facts that he accepted, and rendered the verdict. The entire verdict took about 90 minutes to read. Not as dramatic as the jury filing back into the courtroom and saying, “We the jury find the accused…” perhaps; but unlike with a jury, the judge’s reasoning was plain to see (hear?). Perhaps that’s one advantage to a “judge alone” trial: the way the judge arrives at a decision is laid bare.
Yes. In Ohio, the law now strongly favors jury service by all. Judges, magistrates and lawyers of all kinds may serve on juries. (A very liberal judge served as foreman of a criminal trial jury a few years ago and, much to everyone’s surprise, joined their unanimous verdict of guilty). The trial judges in such cases will usually give a special instruction that the legally-trained juror is not to unduly influence the jury, instruct them in the law, dominate discussion, etc., and moreover must accept the instructions of law provided by the trial judge.
Not necessarily. In Ohio, a judge customarily will give at least a brief explanation of why he or she decided upon guilt or innocence, but is not required to. And a particular sentence need not be explained unless the judge goes higher than the recommended sentence for that particular offense.
That’s a difference in the two systems, then. In Canada a judge is required to give reasons and can be overturned on appeal if the reasons do not provide a sufficient basis for meaningful appellate review.
Sentencing in the matter whose verdict I attended today has been adjourned until next week. This will give the Crown and the defence time to prepare sentencing arguments–necessary, given the verdict.
In a nutshell, the accused was on trial for second-degree murder. The judge found that the necessary mens rea for that charge was not made out by the Crown; but as there was still a deceased at the end of the fight between the accused and the deceased, a manslaughter conviction was appropriate. This was unexpected, but not entirely so. Given the verdict of manslaughter, however, I would expect both sides to require time to do research and to prepare sentencing arguments appropriate to the conviction.
I will try to attend at the sentencing hearing next week. Should anybody be interested, I would be happy to post an update (if I can make it to the sentencing hearing, that is).
Yes, I’d like to hear more about it. Thanks.
Interesting! Here in Canada, a lawyer (and by extension, a judge) may not serve on a jury–such people are automatically excused from doing so. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, anybody who has attended even one year of law school may not serve.
More apropos to the thread, I will say that prior to my attendance at law school, I was called for jury service twice. Once was the coroner’s jury I referred to upthread; the other was shortly after I moved across country (and was thus ineligible in the requesting jurisdiction anyway). Now, as a fully-licensed lawyer, I am barred for life from jury service in Canada.
Elendil’s Heir, should I be able to attend at court on the day of the sentencing hearing I referred to above, I will post an update.
Elendil’s Heir, and other interested parties, I may as well link to a local news report about the matter I referred to above. Here.
Note that I have no connection to the accused; although I am a lawyer, in this case, I was simply a member of the public in the courtroom gallery.
Thanks for the update. Please keep us posted.
interesting case, Spoons. did the judge explain what aspect of mens rea botherer him? did he see it more as a fight than an attempt to kill?
Anecdote: one retired, very senior, very smart Crown Prosecutor told me when I was starting out that in his opinion, a lot of murders were just “assaults that were more successful than the attacker intended.”
But enough about you! 
As of September, this is the information given out to prospective jurors in Quebec (Montreal). From The Juror’s Act LRQ Chapter J-2.
The relevant sections are 3-6, 29 and 47.
I don’t have time to type it all or find an online link, but here’s the bit about persons disqualified from serving (Section 4):
a) persons not qualified as required by section 3 [CDN citizen, legal age, list of electors]
b) members oof the Privy Council, of the Senate or of the House of Commons of Canada
c) members of the Conseil exécutif or of the National Assembly
d) judges of the Supreme court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, tthe Superior Court, the court of Quebec, or a municipal cours, a coroner and officers of the court
e) practicing advocates or notaries
f) peace officers
g) firemen
h) persons afflicted with a mental illness or deficiency
i) persons who do not speak French or English fluently, subject to sections 30 and 45 and
j) persons charged with or conviced of a criminal act
k) in the judicial districts of Mignan, Gaspé and Abitibi, except, in the latter case, in the territories of Abitibi, Mistassini and New Québec, persons not domiciled in a local municipal territory situated wholly or partly within a radius of 60 kilometers from the chief place of the judicial district or from any other place authorized by the Government in accordance with section 51 to 70 of the Courts of Justice Act (chapter T-16)
Section 5 has people who may be exempted from servince as jurors
a) ministers of the cult
a.1) members of the personnel of the National Assembly
b) functionaries engaged in the administration of justice
c) persons 65 years of age or older
d) members of the Canadian regular forces within the meaning of the National Defence Act…
e0 for five years thereafter, members who have served or have been retained for service as jurors
f) persons afflicted with an infirmity
g)persons whose health or domestic obligations are incompatible with serving on a jury and
h) if the public interest allows it, persons having reasonable cause for exemption on a ground not provided for in the preceding paragraphs.
Section 6: The spouse of a person referred to in paragraph b c d e g or j of section 5 or in paragraph b and c of section 5 is also disqualified or, as the case may be, exempted from serving as a juror.
All typos mine. Friend just arriving for lunch, so sorry for no link 
Yes, more than anything else, he seemed to think that it was a fight that got out of control.
Note that comments that follow are the best of my recollection from the judge’s verdict, but I think I have the basics straight.
The accused’s wife was having an affair with the deceased. When the accused found out about it, he went to the deceased’s home, and found his wife there with the deceased. That’s when things started. There was a lot of name-calling, and the two men fought–more punches and wrestling than anything else–then things cooled down. But after a while, the deceased came back with a pickaxe. The accused got a knife from his truck. While the pickaxe wasn’t used, the accused never dropped the knife. And when the parties resumed wrestling, the act happened: the deceased somehow got on top of the accused–and his knife.
In short, it seems that it was meant to be more of a fight than anything else. There was no evidence that the accused went to the deceased’s house to kill him, nor any evidence that the accused formulated the idea to kill him once the fight began. More likely, the accused went to confront him verbally; and if a fight started, well, a fight started. It was definitely an “assault that was more successful” than the accused intended.
Heh. I remember an old police detective who referred to domestic violence cases as “pre-homicides.”
Oh, you know me so well…!
so Spoons, what was the sentence? has it been handed down yet?
Yes, and apologies for failing to update. As things turned out, I was unable to attend the sentencing hearing–I was at the courthouse that morning, and would have been able to easily slip inside the courtroom; but the sentencing hearing was moved to the afternoon, when I was at another appointment. But the matter made it into the media, so I learned the sentence before the day was out: four years. The Crown was arguing for five to six years; the defense was arguing for three to four.
I would have liked to have heard the sentencing arguments. I know the Crown on a professional level, having appeared opposite him as duty counsel a number of times. I know the defense counsel more by reputation, but his reputation is solid, and he is regarded as one of the best defense lawyers in town. It would have been something to hear these two arguing!
I get called once or twice a year, half the time I get dismissed because there isn’t anything to do, rest of the time I make $20 for showing up to get voir dired, sometimes I serve [at $20 per day] other times I get dismissed. I tend to send in the little form that comes with my check that says to kick me back into the pool, I waive my 3 year vacation from being worried about being called in again.
What can I say, 20 bucks for sitting on my arse waiting to get voire dired? eats sitting at home watching tv and not getting paid