"But ... but ... but ... Your Lordship ....."

Good Day Readers:

The Toronto Star article brought back memories of a couple summers ago when we were called for jury selection.

For those who have not had the experience, the process begins when the court is provided with thousands of names randomly selected from the Ministry of Health data base. Once in the courtroom your name may be selected from a box in which case you're invited to a microphone at which time the presiding judge asks if there's any reason you cannot or should not serve. In this instance The Honourable Glenn Joyal, recently appointed Chief Justice of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench, oversaw the process.

We were slightly taken aback by the number of individuals and array of excuses put forward to avoid serving. Our favourite - the candidate who worried she might be in a potential conflict of interest because her surname was the same as that of accused. It was a common Francophone family name - nice try!

When our turn came we neglected to mention we were a blogger/citizen journalist reasoning if you're interested in serving why risk prematurely eliminating yourself when the system might very well do it for you a little later in the process. As fate would have it we made it into the jury box but were excused when our number was called.

Because no Motion for Challenges for Cause had not been debated at a Pre-Trial Conference, lawyers for the Crown and Defence were not allowed to ask prospective jurors any questions. All they knew about you were your name, address and occupation. Each prospective juror was asked to rise, face the accused and their lawyer(s) to swear they'd give a fair, impartial, unbiased decsison - or words to that effect. Poof! Just like that we were eliminated left to wonder why?

We learned about challenges for cause from a Pre-Trial Justice on the seat of our pants sitting in a courtroom thanks in large part to Murray Trachtenberg who prosecuted the Manitoba Metis Federation's Canadian taxpayer financed defamation lawsuit against ww.cybersmokesignals.com.

www.ptlaw.mb.ca; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca

Prior to attending jury selection, prospective candidates are mailed an information package advising them of what to expect. One interesting comment:

"Every person who serves on a jury will be paid $30.00 a day for each day in excess of 10 days."

The trial in question involved alleged multiple sexual assaults so conceivably could have comsumed weeks. In our case it didn't matter because we were retired but what about the single parent or small business owner? That's not even close to minumum wage! While employers are obliged to release and employee for jury duty are they required to pay their wages? We don't know but doubt it.

And yes, had we been selected we would have disclosed our status as a blogger/citizen journalist to let the courts decide what to do. Would have been interesting to see how the situation was handled but as fate would have it we'll never know.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

__________________________________________________

Jury no-shows ordered to court to explain absences
Bob Mitchell/Staff Reporter
Friday, February 18 2011
Justice Casey Hill, shown here, was so frustrated with people ignoring their summonses for jury duty that he ordered 43 people back to court Thursday to explain their absences. The problem delayed the jury selection for a murder trial, he said. (Supplied Photo)

The look on their faces only told part of the story.

Scared, and nervous, 28 people slowly walked from the back of Brampton’s largest courtroom on Thursday to explain to a Superior Court judge why they ignored their jury duty summonses.

For many, it was like walking up the steps to the gallows. Had they known Justice Casey Hill’s reputation of being a no-nonsense judge, they would have perhaps been even more tense during their 60-foot walk to the podium.

One by one, Hill spoke with each person all of whom had been warned beforehand that they faced a possible charge of contempt and a fine if he wasn’t satisfied with their reasons.

“Honesty is essential,” Hill told them.

It was an extraordinary move by Hill. The judge had had enough. The no-shows were supposed to be among the 300 people on Panel 118 serving as the pool of potential jurors on the murder trial of Alvin Boyce of Brampton. None of them knew they could wind up on the jury in a lengthy homicide case.

The citizens’ absence from the panel forced a delay in jury selection, according to Hill.

Rather than issuing warrants or convicting 43 Peel residents in absentia for neglecting their civic duty, he asked that registered letters be sent on January 28 ordering them to appear in his courtroom Thursday.

Six letters were returned because people had moved, including one person now living in the United Kingdom. In total, 28 people turned up.

Hill showed restraint and leniency. Instead of dishing out punishment, he treated it as a fact-finding exercise to determine how to prevent it from continuing.

“How are you today?” Hill asked an elderly woman wearing a black sweater over top a red blouse and clutching a piece of paper she had written with words explaining why she never appeared on January 19.

“Terrified,” she answered. “Very nervous.”

“Well, we’ll see if we can do something about that,” Hill said as she passed the note to him explaining the stress she had been under at the time she received her jury notice.

Hill told the gathering their no-shows weren’t just an isolated matter. Based on data from the previous five months, between 11 and 21 per cent of prospective jurors have failed to show up for 42 different Brampton trials.

“. . . A systemic problem has emerged,” Hill said. “It’s important to recognize that jury service is a public duty and is not an invitation to attend or an option. It’s a court order with consequences for disobedience. Every person must attend without a reasonable excuse.”

Nine people still did not appear. According to Canada Post, the registered letters were delivered and signed for. Justice Casey Hill has asked for more information with an intention to ordering nine people to court at a later date for a hearing. A contempt conviction carries a fine of up to $1,000 and possible jail of up to 30 days.
Ironically, many of those in court on Thursday had excuses that likely would have got them off jury duty had they showed up as required and provided their reasons.

Several people said they were sick or had medical reasons for not attending, including a man with an “embarrassing hernia malfunction” and a woman who suffers from anxiety and panic attacks.

Others insisted they faxed doctors’ notes to the court, which for some reason never got filed.

One man was burying his mother in Romania. He faxed information to the court but never got a reply.

Others simply came clean. They simply forgot or misplaced the letter in the Christmas season.

In all, 81 people were excused for various reasons before the January 19 panel date. Another 219 were expected to appear in court that day.

Instead, only 174 people showed. The court was forced to merge them with another panel, delaying jury selection.

“The consequences (no-shows) are significant,” Hill said. “The delinquency delayed Boyce’s constitutional right to a trial.”

Jury trials are a symbol of democratic institutions and of civilized societies, Hill said.

Justice MIA

What the law says: A person who does not appear after receiving a jury summons could be convicted of contempt and receive a fine of up to $1,000 or up to 30 days in jail.

What usually happens: Nothing

What happened this time: Justice Casey Hill asked that registered letters be sent to 43 residents of Peel summoning them to his courtroom to explain why they didn’t turn up