"FEDUNCHAK YESTERDAY ASKED ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICE ALFRED STONG TO OVERTURN HIS CLIENT'S CONVICTION AND ORDER A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS HIS CLIENT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL HAD BEEN VIOLATED BY THE CROWN'S HAVING HAD POLICE DO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON POTENTIAL JURORS WITHOUT INFORMING THE DEFENCE.
STONG RULED HE DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. SENTENCING IS TO BEGIN SEPT. 28."
REPORTER PETER SMALL: TORONTO 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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Performing background checks on prospective jurors is not only legal, but is in keeping with the duties of prosecutors, the Crown is arguing in a murder trial, reporter Peter Small's story begins," under the heading, "Crown defends screening of jurors: Murder trial documents shed light on practice."
"Prosecutors have an "obligation to ensure that only persons qualified to be so are jurors," assistant Crown attorney Ann Tierney argues in court documents at a murder trial in Barrie," the story continues.
"This is the first time Crown arguments on the controversial practice of juror background checks have been available for publication.
Tierney quotes the Supreme Court of Canada as saying in 1998 that "there is nothing inherently evil or criminal about counsel getting background information on prospective jurors."
The Crown submissions are in response to a motion by lawyer Ben Fedunchak calling for a new trial for his client. In February, a jury convicted the 19-year-old man of first-degree murder in the March 2006 stabbing death of 14-year-old Brayton Bullock. Because the accused was 16 when the slaying occurred, he cannot be named.
Fedunchak yesterday asked Ontario Superior Court Justice Alfred Stong to overturn his client's conviction and order a new trial on the grounds his client's right to a fair trial had been violated by the Crown's having had police do background checks on potential jurors without informing the defence.
Stong ruled he did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue. Sentencing is to begin Sept. 28."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
