JURYGATE; UP-DATE; HUARD AND ZOLDI (WINDSOR, ONTARIO) CASE; JUDGE REBUKES OFFICER WHO SECRETLY VETTED JURORS FOR PROSECUTOR;

\

"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

UP-DATE; JURYGATE; WINDSOR CASE; (ZOLDI AND HUARD); SUBPOENAS QUASHED; POLICE CHIEF AND OTHERS NEED NOT TESTIFY; REBUFF TO DEFENCE LAWYERS;

"MUNROE (DEFENCE LAWYER) WANTED TO GET SMITH ON THE WITNESS STAND AFTER HE RECENTLY TOLD THE STAR THAT THIS WASN’T THE FIRST TIME OFFICERS DID BACKGROUND CHECKS ON POTENTIAL JURORS.

MUNROE ALSO TRIED TO SUBPOENA ASSISTANT CROWN ATTORNEYS TOM MEEHAN AND SCOTT PRATT, WHO WORKED THE HUARD AND ZOLDI CASE, ALONG WITH POLICE DETECTIVES FRANK PROVIDENTI AND MARK DENONVILLE, WHO DID THE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE PROSECUTIONS.

THOMAS (JUDGE) QUASHED THE SUBPOENAS AND RULED THEY WEREN’T NECESSARY, GIVEN MOST OF THE INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THEIR ROLE IN THE JURY VETTING BEFORE THE MISTRIAL WAS ORDERED, BECAUSE THEY WOULDN’T HAVE ANYTHING “MATERIAL” TO OFFER.

THOMAS ALSO DISMISSED A REQUEST BY THE DEFENCE LAWYERS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION ON ALL CASES BACK TO 1997 WHERE PROSECUTORS VETTED JURIES."

REPORTER TREVOR WILHELM; 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's jurygate story ran earlier today under the heading: "Police Chief Smith not required to testify in Huard, Zoldi case."

"WINDSOR, Ont. -- A Windsor judge has ruled that Police Chief Gary Smith won’t have to take the stand and submit to questions about his department’s role in a province-wide jury vetting scandal," the story, by reporter Trevor Wilhelm, begins;

"The attempt to get Smith into court along with other police and prosecutors was part of a bid by a pair of defence lawyers to have first-degree murders charges against their clients Shane Huard and Richard Zoldi stayed," the story continues;

"Lawyers Kirk Munroe and Greg Goulin want the stay as a “remedy” after revelations that prosecutors did secret, detailed background checks on jurors.

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 earlier this 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 suspect’s 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 a new jury selection to begin Monday. In the meantime, the hearing to have the charges stayed continues.

Munroe wanted to get Smith on the witness stand after he recently told The Star that this wasn’t the first time officers did background checks on potential jurors.

Munroe also tried to subpoena Assistant Crown attorneys Tom Meehan and Scott Pratt, who worked the Huard and Zoldi case, along with police detectives Frank Providenti and Mark Denonville, who did the background checks for the prosecutions.

Thomas quashed the subpoenas and ruled they weren’t necessary, given most of the individuals have already testified to their role in the jury vetting before the mistrial was ordered, because they wouldn’t have anything “material” to offer.

Thomas also dismissed a request by the defence lawyers to receive information on all cases back to 1997 where prosecutors vetted juries.

“I am convinced it will not add anything to the end result here,” he said."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

JURYGATE: UP-DATE; WINDSOR CASE; (HUARD AND ZOLDI); MOTION TO STAY 1ST DEGREE MURDER CHARGES UNDER WAY; WINDSOR STAR STORY;

"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;