\"TWO MONTHS INTO THE FIRST-DEGREE MURDER TRIAL OF SHANE HUARD AND RICHARD ZOLDI, THOMAS DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE COURT LEARNED THAT OFFICERS USED A CONFIDENTIAL POLICE DATABASE TO GO OVER A LIST OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS AND IDENTIFY UNDESIRABLES WITH SUCH NOTATIONS AS "DISLIKES POLICE," "FAMILY ISSUES" AND "YO (YOUNG OFFENDER) RECORD," INDICATING A YOUNG OFFENDER CONVICTION.
THE JUDGE, WHO REPEATEDLY SIDED TUESDAY WITH THE DEFENCE IN ITS ARGUMENTS THAT WHAT THE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS HAD DONE WAS WRONG, IS HEARING AN APPLICATION BY THE DEFENCE ON WHETHER THE CHARGES AGAINST HUARD AND ZOLDI SHOULD BE STAYED."
REPORTER DOUG SCHMIDT: 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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Windsor police Chief Gary Smith received a rebuke from a Superior Court justice Tuesday over public statements he made after a murder trial was derailed in May following revelations that police had gathered confidential background information on prospective jurors for the prosecutors," the Windsor Star story by reporter Doug Schmidt begins, under the heading "Judge rebukes police chief in jury-vetting case."
"Lawyers for two accused killers continue to argue this week before Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas that their clients should be allowed to walk free over the jury vetting scandal, now the subject of an investigation by Ontario's privacy commissioner," the story, published September 2, 2009, continues.
"Smith, not present at the proceedings, was criticized from the bench by Thomas for suggesting his detectives were only trying to help the Crown's office find "quality" jurors.
"Frankly, that's none of the chief's business," said Thomas. He was referring to a Windsor Star story in which Smith wondered whether the public would want someone convicted of drunk driving serving as a juror on an impaired driving case where a death occurred.
Two months into the first-degree murder trial of Shane Huard and Richard Zoldi, Thomas declared a mistrial after the court learned that officers used a confidential police database to go over a list of prospective jurors and identify undesirables with such notations as "dislikes police," "family issues" and "YO record," indicating a young offender conviction.
The judge, who repeatedly sided Tuesday with the defence in its arguments that what the police and prosecutors had done was wrong, is hearing an application by the defence on whether the charges against Huard and Zoldi should be stayed.
Jury selection for a new trial is set for Sept. 21 -- unless Thomas agrees with the defence motion and determines the two accused should be set free.
Lawyer Kirk Munroe, representing Zoldi, argued the "misconduct" by police and the Crown that led to the mistrial was such an egregious attack on the integrity of the judicial system that it demanded a strong repudiation by the court in the form of a stay of the charges.
Lawyer Greg Goulin, representing Huard, said the Crown actually benefits from its misconduct because the mistrial declaration came after part of the defence's case had been divulged.
"I don't disagree with you," responded Thomas.
Assistant Crown attorney Renee Puskas said the evidence didn't support the defence's argument that the jury vetting was done to provide an advantage to the prosecution. While "misguided," Det. Mark Denonville believed the background checks were "prudent" and part of the investigation process, she said.
Puskas said there was already "a very strong denunciatory and disciplinary aspect" to the mistrial being declared and that the judge and a new directive by the attorney general have ensured the same process would not be repeated."
The story can be found at:
http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=62e840f5-642a-477b-9cd4-86695824597a
