"MUNROE (DEFENCE LAWYER) IS TRYING TO SUBPOENA MEEHAN, PRATT AND POLICE DETECTIVES FRANK PROVIDENTI AND MARK DENONVILLE, WHO DID THE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE PROSECUTION. HE ALSO WANTS TO QUESTION POLICE CHIEF GARY SMITH, WHO RECENTLY TOLD THE STAR THAT THIS WASN’T THE FIRST TIME OFFICERS HAVE DONE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON POTENTIAL JURORS.
“I NEED TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH WHAT I HAVE SOME EVIDENCE ON, THAT IT’S AN ONGOING PROBLEM,” SAID MUNROE. “BUT WITHOUT THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF THE ONGOING PROBLEM, IT’S DIFFICULT TO FASHION THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY, SO I’M ASKING FOR EVIDENCE OF JURY VETTING BACK TO THE (ROBERT) LATIMER CASE, WHICH IS THE FIRST CASE THAT TALKED ABOUT ABUSE OF PROCESS AS FAR AS INVESTIGATING JURORS.”
REPORTER TREVOR WILHEIM: THE 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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Windsor Star story by reporter Trevor Wilheim ran earlier today under the heading: "Scandal over jury-vetting could allow accused killers to go free."
A cut-line tells readers that: "Defence lawyers Kirk Munroe and Greg Goulin launched a bid Monday to have first-degree murder charges against Shane Huard and Richard Zoldi stayed as a “remedy” after revelations that prosecutors performed secret, detailed background checks on jurors."
Another cut-line indicates that: "In the wake of a provincewide scandal over jury vetting, two accused Windsor killers might walk away free men and the police chief could be forced to testify about his officers’ conduct."
"Defence lawyers Kirk Munroe and Greg Goulin launched a bid Monday to have first-degree murder charges against Shane Huard and Richard Zoldi stayed as a “remedy” after revelations that prosecutors performed secret, detailed background checks on jurors," the story begins;
"Munroe is also calling on the Crown Attorney’s office to reveal details of every jury case back to 1997 in which police and prosecutors employed similar tactics," it continues;
"“On a stay he would walk out,” Munroe said of his client Zoldi. “Assuming a stay was upheld or not appealed, he would walk out the door, that’s true.”
“A stay is a very drastic remedy, but it’s designed to be prospective and it’s designed to be preventative with the idea that the courts want to control any abuse.
“So the question becomes, is this conduct of jury vetting in Windsor so pervasive that the court needs to send a very strong message that if you continue with this conduct, you’ll lose cases?”
Zoldi and Huard are charged with first-degree murder for the 2006 shooting of drug dealer Troy Hutchinson.
Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas declared a mistrial last month after learning Windsor police had conducted background checks on more than 200 potential jurors. Thomas said when prosecutors secretly used police information during jury selection, they “tainted” the jury and compromised the suspects’ right to a fair trial.
Investigators used a confidential police database to identify undesirable jurors with such notations as “dislikes police,” “family issues” and “criminal associates.” The officers also singled out people they thought might be sympathetic to police. One woman picked for the jury is a Crown witness in another upcoming murder trial who has helped police in that case by turning over surveillance video.
Days after the mistrial, the province’s privacy commissioner dispatched a team to Windsor to investigate the jury vetting and determine if citizens’ privacy rights were violated.
The team then went to Thunder Bay and Barrie where the practice had also been uncovered.
Zoldi and Huard are set to stand trial again, with new jury selection to begin Monday. But Munroe said that may not be enough if assistant Crown attorneys Tom Meehan and Scott Pratt, who worked the case, aren’t the only ones doing the jury vetting. There is evidence, said Munroe, that this is a “systemic problem that strikes at the very core of our system.
“It if is multiple prosecutors in the same office and they’re cavalierly dealing with this, then I would submit that it’s not enough,” said Munroe.
“If the police are doing it, even unbeknownst to the Crowns, then it’s a cause of great concern. So I have more questions than answers at this point in time. The purpose of this hearing today is to force them to give me answers.”
Munroe is trying to subpoena Meehan, Pratt and police detectives Frank Providenti and Mark Denonville, who did the background checks for the prosecution. He also wants to question police Chief Gary Smith, who recently told The Star that this wasn’t the first time officers have done background checks on potential jurors.
“I need to be able to establish what I have some evidence on, that it’s an ongoing problem,” said Munroe. “But without the depth and breadth of the ongoing problem, it’s difficult to fashion the appropriate remedy, so I’m asking for evidence of jury vetting back to the (Robert) Latimer case, which is the first case that talked about abuse of process as far as investigating jurors.”
Assistant Crown attorney Brian Manarin said Munroe is on a fishing expedition. He said a criminal trial “should not turn into a Royal Commission Inquiry.
“That request, that omnibus request, is by definition so wide-reaching and without focus that it smacks of casting a net to its widest circumference,” he said.
Manarin also questioned the accuracy of The Star article that quoted Smith as saying police officers have done juror background checks a number of times before.
“In fact, it smacks of journalistic licence,” he said.
Munroe later pointed out that in addition to the story, Smith’s comments during an editorial board meeting with Star representatives were recorded and posted on its website."
The hearing continues today."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
