PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Some Toronto judges are known to go “off script” by beefing up their instructions by warning specifically about the perils of googling. But Brown, the defence lawyer, believes it would help if the instructions had some teeth. In the United Kingdom and some American states, jurors can face criminal sanctions if they Google during a trial. “The government would likely need to legislate it as a crime to ensure compliance as they have done with maintaining secrecy in jury deliberations,” he wrote."
-------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This is but a small portion of a larger story. It is well worth the read word for word.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
--------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Court cases can go off the rails when jurors go to Google," by reporter Betsy Powell, published by The Toronto Star on January 13, 2019.
GIST: "At
the opening of a civil trial in Ottawa two years ago, the judge warned
the jury against conducting any research on the internet. “It
will just introduce into the trial information that’s not properly
evidence,” Justice Charles Hackland told the jury on Jan. 9, 2018. And
that, he added, “could in some cases torpedo the trial if it’s a serious
enough matter.” Nevertheless, eight
weeks after all the evidence had been heard about the vehicle collision
that led to the trial, the jury foreperson googled the law about the
central issue in the case: liability. Next
month, the Ontario Court of Appeal will consider whether the judge
erred when he turned down a request to declare a mistrial on that basis.
It’s believed to be the first time any appellate court in Canada has
considered arguments about internet use by jurors in a civil case. Despite
judge’s instructions against hunting for information online, juror
googling continues to bedevil the justice system, sometimes forcing
mistrials or worse, verdicts that could be based on misleading or false
information gleaned from the internet. Yet
with dozens of jury trials scheduled in 2020 at downtown Toronto’s
Superior courthouse, some legal insiders feel not enough is being done
to ensure jurors not conduct their own research into a case.
There are no easy fixes. “The
difficulty is that strongly emphasizing that jurors should not do
Google searches will only intrigue them more,” said Toronto defence
lawyer Daniel Brown, a vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers’
Association..................................................... At
the start of every jury trial, the judge reads instructions to the
jurors about the law they need to apply to reach a verdict. Those
instructions, which were created by a special committee of the Canadian
Judicial Council, tell jurors they are not to use the internet or any
electronic device in connection with the case, and remind them that
their task is to decide the case based solely on the evidence heard in
the courtroom. Some Toronto judges are known to go “off script” by
beefing up their instructions by warning specifically about the perils
of googling. But Brown, the defence
lawyer, believes it would help if the instructions had some teeth. In
the United Kingdom and some American states, jurors can face criminal
sanctions if they Google during a trial. “The
government would likely need to legislate it as a crime to ensure
compliance as they have done with maintaining secrecy in jury
deliberations,” he wrote. Another
proposal would see jury members sign an undertaking to fulfil their
obligations without access to the internet or evidence not heard in
court. A law student who studied what
he called the “runaway jury” phenomenon in Canada — borrowing from the
title of a John Grisham novel — concluded jurors might also benefit from
hearing about the rules of evidence. That might help them understand a
judge’s gatekeeping function to determine admissibility based on
relevance, reliability or where its prejudicial effect exceeds its
probative value, Keith W. Hogg wrote in his 2019 paper “Runaway Jurors:
Independent Juror Research in the internet Age.” It might also help them understand why evidence must be tested in court, where the accused has an opportunity to respond. “Jurors’
insufficient appreciation of the goals of evidence law may also
contribute to the problem,” Hogg wrote. “All these matters could be
addressed more explicitly by the trial judge.""
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.""
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191210/da-drops-murder-charge-against-taunton-man-who-served-35-years-for-1979-slaying
----------------------------------------------------------------
