"The Crown was determined to convict Troy Davey for the first-degree murder of Cobourg Police Constable Chris Garrett, so prosecutors consulted local police on the desirability of potential jurors for the high-profile trial, lawyer Christopher Hicks argued before the Ontario Court of Appeal.
"This was designed to get a jury that was partial to the Crown," Mr. Hicks said. "I hesitate to use the word sinister, but there's more here than meets the eye.""
REPORTER JEFF MITCHELL: DURHAMREGION.COM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO -- Prosecutors who sought advice from police on prospective jurors tipped the scales of justice against a Cobourg man who was eventually convicted of murdering a cop, judges considering the man's appeal heard Monday," reporter Jeff Mitchell's durhamregion.com story published on June 28, 2010, begins, under the heading, "Jury vetting tipped scales in Cobourg murder case, court told: Troy Davey appeals conviction in officer's killing."
"The Crown was determined to convict Troy Davey for the first-degree murder of Cobourg Police Constable Chris Garrett, so prosecutors consulted local police on the desirability of potential jurors for the high-profile trial, lawyer Christopher Hicks argued before the Ontario Court of Appeal," the story continued.
"This was designed to get a jury that was partial to the Crown," Mr. Hicks said. "I hesitate to use the word sinister, but there's more here than meets the eye."
Mr. Davey was 21 when a jury convicted him of the first-degree murder of Const. Garrett in February of 2007. He was sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years. Jurors heard Mr. Davey lured the officer to Cobourg's old hospital site in the early morning hours of May 15, 2004, by falsely reporting a robbery, then attacked him with a knife. Const. Garrett died after his throat was slashed; during the attack he managed to fire his pistol, wounding Mr. Davey.
Prior to Mr. Davey's trial, prosecutors consulted local cops, including Cobourg police and OPP officers, on the background of prospective jurors, the Court of Appeal heard Monday. A list of jurors was "cryptically marked -- yes or no," Mr. Hicks said.
The practice, known as jury vetting, allows the Crown to obtain information defence lawyers aren't privy to and therefore creates an unfair advantage during the process of selecting jurors, Mr. Hicks contended. He argued privacy legislation prohibits the practice.
"It (information on jurors) shouldn't be gathered, but if it is, it should be disclosed" to the defence, Mr. Hicks said.
Crown counsel David Finley argued the Cobourg Crown's office broke no rules in researching the jury pool. He said the information gleaned by polling police amounted to gathering opinions on juror suitability, rather than any indication of a person's tendency to support the Crown during the trial.
"Nothing you have seen in this case should cause you any concern about the integrity of the jury," Mr. Finley argued.
The defence has advanced other grounds of appeal, including the weight given by the jury to psychiatrists' opinions Mr. Davey was not capable of forming the intent to commit murder.
Mr. Davey was not present at Osgoode Hall for the hearing. The Court of Appeal panel -- Justices Marc Rosenberg, Robert Blair and Russel Juriansz -- reserved judgment."
The story can be found at:
http:
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;//www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/157183
