"JUNE 5: COURT EXHIBITS INCLUDE A MAY 8TH MEMO FROM MICHAEL MINNS, DEPUTY CROWN ATTORNEY IN SIMCOE COUNTY, ENCLOSING THE JURY LISTS TO SIX LOCAL OPP DETACHMENTS AND ASKING FOR INFORMATION THAT WOULD WEED OUT “DISREPUTABLE PERSONS” FROM BEING SELECTED AS JURORS. SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT COMES BACK INCLUDES NOTATIONS SUCH AS “SUICIDAL” “FATHER IS A DRINKER,” “NEIGHBOUR SHOT HIS CAT” AS WELL AS INFORMATION ABOUT MINOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO."
NATIONAL POST TIMELINE; (SECRET SCREENING OF POTENTIAL JURORS EXPOSEE);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: In a previous post I asked: "Why didn't Ontario prosecutors examine Dr. Charles Smith's qualifications a bit more closely over the years, pay more attention to court decisions suggesting he was biased towards the Crown and that that his opinions were seriously flawed - or at least share the existence of these decisions with the defence?"
My answer was that the prosecutors cared more about winning the case than the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted;
I buttressed my response with the story recently broken by the National Post that prosecutors in several parts of Ontario have been asking police to do secret background checks on jurors.
This controversy has lead to numerous requests for mistrials and could result in a bids to open numerous cases where accused persons have been convicted in the shadow of the illegal practice which taints a criminal jury trial from the outset.
The Charles Smith Blog is very much concerned with the question as to how far prosecutors will go to win the case and therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "timeline" by National post reporters Chris Boutet and Shannon Kari - published on June, 10, 2009 - explains how the paper uncovered the sexret jury checks - and provides insights into the development of the story;
The Timeline is preced by the following note: "The Ontario Privacy Commissioner has announced a formal investigation into the use of confidential police databases by Crown attorneys in the province to probe the backgrounds of potential jurors in criminal trials. Here is a timeline of the events leading up to the investigation."
May 25, 2009
The National Post reports that a mistrial was declared 11 days earlier in a trial in Barrie after it was inadvertently disclosed to the defence that the Crown had lists with “additions” about potential jurors. The “additions” were the result of secret police background checks of everyone on the jury lists, with the information passed on to the Crown. The data included personal information and even mental health data. Documents filed in the Court of Appeal indicate that the practice in Simcoe County, where the main courthouse is located in Barrie, dated back at least until 2004.
Later that day, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney-General says the Attorney-General only learned that day about what had happened in Simcoe County. “Verifying information that could make a person ineligible to serve as a juror is not uncommon. While the practice may vary from jurisdiction, Crown attorney offices take steps to ensure there is an impartial jury,” wrote spokesman Brendan Crawley. He adds that there is a Crown practice memorandum not to request police to do more than criminal record checks and to pass on any information to the defence.
May 26
Mr. Bentley addresses the issue in the provincial legislature and states that the improper background checks will stop. He suggests the practice is limited to Simcoe County, although he does not say how long it took place in that jurisdiction. All Crown attorneys in Ontario receive a memo from chief prosecutor John Ayre, reminding them of the practice direction issued in 2006, not to request more than criminal record checks and to disclose all information to police.
May 28
After receiving the May 26 memo, two Crown attorneys in Windsor disclose that sweeping background checks were conducted by police of potential jurors in the ongoing murder trial of Shane Huard and Richard Zoldi. The information was used to pick jurors for the trial and the information was not disclosed to the defence.
June 1
Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas begins a hearing outside the presence of the jury to find out what the Crown and police knew about potential jurors in the trial of Mr. Huard and Mr. Zoldi.
June 2
The lawyer representing an alleged street racer charged in the high-profile 2007 death of trucker David Virgoe, asks a judge in Barrie for a new panel of potential jurors because of the background checks conducted on the original panel. The Crown obtains a temporary publication ban.
June 4
Crown attorneys Scott Pratt and Thomas Meehan testify in Windsor about the background checks. Mr. Pratt says he was not aware of the 2006 policy directive not to ask police for background checks and to disclose any of this type of information to the defence. Mr. Pratt testifies that a Windsor police detective would lean over and provide information whenever a potential juror’s name was announced in court. Mr. Meehan suggests there was “a big difference” in asking police to obtain the information, instead of “passively” receiving the data and using it in jury selection.
June 5
The Crown agrees to a new panel in the street racer case, but suggests it was because of “tainting” as a result of media reports, not the conduct of the prosecution or police. Justice John McIsaac lifts the publication ban and refuses to seal the jury lists. The judge tells the court that the public has a right to know about the practices of the prosecution.
Court exhibits include a May 8th memo from Michael Minns, deputy Crown attorney in Simcoe County, enclosing the jury lists to six local OPP detachments and asking for information that would weed out “disreputable persons” from being selected as jurors. Some of the information that comes back includes notations such as “suicidal” “father is a drinker,” “neighbour shot his cat” as well as information about minor criminal offences more than 20 years ago.
June 8
Judge Thomas grants a mistrial and orders the prosecution of Mr. Huard and Mr. Zoldi to begin again next month before a new panel of jurors. The judge imposes a one-day publication ban so that he can inform the jury in court about the reasons for the mistrial.
June 9
The background checks are described as “offensive” by Judge Thomas, who announces the mistrial and is sharply critical of the conduct of the Crown and police. Some of the jurors in the Windsor trial demand that police and the prosecutors be fired.
The Attorney-General refuses to call in an outside agency to investigate how widespread the improper background checks have been in Ontario. Mr. Bentley suggests they were limited to Simcoe County and Windsor. He says Mr. Ayre is “calling around” to Crown offices in the province to ask them to disclose if they have done this in the past. There is no promise to share any information with the public.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
