"ZOLDI AND HUARD ARE SET TO STAND TRIAL AGAIN IN JULY, WITH SELECTION OF A NEW JURY SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JULY 6. BUT DEFENCE LAWYER KIRK MUNROE ARGUES THE CROWN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROSECUTE THE PAIR BECAUSE THEIR CHARTER RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED.
"THE MAJOR GROUNDS IS THE JURY VETTING," MUNROE SAID. THE MISTRIAL WAS THE IMMEDIATE REMEDY IN THE CASE, HE SAID. STAYING THE CHARGES IS "ANOTHER REMEDY FOR THE SAME MISCONDUCT.""
REPORTER SARAH SACHELI; WINDSOR STAR;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 some 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 is therefore monitoring developments on a regular basis;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two men charged with with the first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of a drug dealer want more than the mistrial that has already been declared because of tainting; they want the charge to be stayed because of the denial of their Charter rights;
The story, by reporter Sarah Sacheli, appeared in the Windsor Star on June 26, 2009, under the heading: Accused want charges stayed," and the sub-heading: "Defendants claim jury 'tainted'."
"In the latest development in the province wide scandal over jury vetting by police, two accused murderers in Windsor have applied to have the charges against them stayed," the story begins;
"Richard Zoldi and Shane Huard are charged with first-degree murder in the August 2006 shooting death of drug dealer Troy Hutchinson," the story cintinues;
"Last month, Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas declared a mistrial in the case after learning Windsor police had conducted background checks on more than 200 people called for jury duty for the trial. Thomas said when prosecutors in the case secretly used the police information during jury selection, they "tainted" the jury and compromised the accused men's right to a fair trial.
Zoldi and Huard are set to stand trial again in July, with selection of a new jury scheduled to begin July 6. But defence lawyer Kirk Munroe argues the Crown should not be allowed to prosecute the pair because their Charter rights have been infringed.
"The major grounds is the jury vetting," Munroe said. The mistrial was the immediate remedy in the case, he said. Staying the charges is "another remedy for the same misconduct."
Munroe's application is scheduled to be heard by Thomas Monday.
During a four-day hearing that led to Thomas's mistrial ruling earlier this month, Windsor police Det. Mark Denonville testified he offered to do background checks on the residents whose names appeared on the jury roll for the trial.
He and fellow detective Frank Providenti ran the prospective jurors through a police database called Versadex and made notes on what they found.
Among the notations were information about traffic tickets, arrests that resulted in no convictions, criminal convictions dating back to when prospective jurors were teens and crimes for which the prospective jurors had received pardons or conditional discharges.
Under the province's Juries Act, the Crown is permitted to request a criminal record check from the court sheriff for indictable offences only. Only convictions which resulted in jail terms of more than 12 months would disqualify a potential juror from serving.
But the officers collected personal information beyond criminal convictions to find what Justice Thomas termed as "helpful" jurors.
They noted potentially undesirable jurors with such notations as "dislikes police," "family issues" and "criminal associates."
Assistant Crown attorney Tom Meehan testified he had received similar information from police in past cases he has prosecuted, an admission which Thomas, in his mistrial ruling, said "heightened his concern."
Thomas, a former defence lawyer who sat on the Ontario Court of Justice before becoming a Superior Court judge, called the notion of running background checks on prospective jurors "offensive." He alluded to the possibility of a "future inquiry" on the practice.
Days later, the province's privacy commissioner launched an investigation into jury vetting, beginning the probe by dispatching a team to Windsor. The team then went to Thunder Bay and Barrie where the practice had also been uncovered.
The commissioner says her primary concern is whether citizens' privacy rights have been violated."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
