On September 20, 2007, my guest on “Strictly Legal” was Todd White, a partner in Greenspan White in Toronto. Todd White and Eddie Greenspan, the partners in that firm, are well known for their representation of Conrad Black and many other accused persons in high profile Canadian cases. Todd has been on the programme before and has a gift for helping me demystify certain aspects of Canadian criminal law.

On September 20th, we talked about Canadian juries. In Canada, juries are available both in civil trials and in criminal trials. In a civil trial, only six jurors are needed. In a criminal trial, however, twelve jurors are selected. On the programme we focused on criminal juries and, in particular, whether juries “get it right.” Critics of the jury system feel that the average person cannot comprehend complicated legal issues, believing essentially that the average person is not smart enough to understand contemporary law.

Todd White dispelled that notion and expressed the view that juries often immediately understand what the case is about and have no difficulty comprehending the issues placed before them. This view is certainly held up by studies done by the Canadian Law Reform Commission back in the 1970s and 1980s, where surveys of judges and lawyers revealed that professionals involved with the justice system feel strongly that juries understand the process, the evidence and generally make wise decisions.

Todd White and I reviewed some of the individuals who are not eligible to be jurors, including lawyers, law students, doctors, coroners, police officers and jail guards. I asked Todd if there was any type of person that defence lawyers generally wish to avoid for juries and he was frank in admitting that teachers are not considered to make particularly good jurors. This is not because they do not understand the law, but rather they are prone (at least in the view of defence lawyers) to make snap judgments. Defence lawyers prefer a juror with an open mind. I have not heard from too many teachers since we aired that programme, but that insight caught me by surprise.

During the programme on juries, we had calls from people who had received Jury Notices. In one case, a gentleman had received a request to come in to be a juror on at least five occasions. That was a little odd as, according to the Juries Act, a person is eligible to serve on jury duty once every three years.

Let’s face it, most people do not relish the idea of being on a jury. This is because it interferes with their employment, their personal life and they do not like the idea of getting involved in such difficult decisions. However, it is really an important duty for each and every citizen.

For more information about juries in Canada, I recommend that you take a look at Chapter 1 of my book Strictly Legal: Things You Absolutely Need to Know About Canadian Law. In that chapter I discuss “the System” and spend time discussing judges and juries.

One of the calls that we had on the programme that evening concerned a “Jury Duty Questionnaire” that is being mailed to Ontario residents. The caller wanted to know what would happen if he did not complete and return the jury questionnaire that he had received in the mail. A little research turned up the fact that the Juries Act of Ontario stipulates that if the questionnaire is not completed and returned in a reasonable time, an individual can be fined $5,000.00.

This issue of juries is an interesting one and I will return to it on future programmes, as I have particular interest in exploring the requirement for confidentiality of jurors after a trial. We have all seen jurors interviewed on American television after the trials of people such as O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson and other prominent celebrities. In Canada, jurors are prohibited from discussing their deliberations. This aspect of the jury system in Canada could use a little further “demystification,” so stay tuned for more discussion of juries on “Strictly Legal.”

Michael G. Cochrane, B.A., LL.B.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 9th, 2007 at 9:51 pm.
It is categorized under Miscellaneous.
You can follow responses through the RSS 2.0 feed.