|
Juries
Harvard Law students were assigned
the Gillian Guess case to explore. The site
is thorough and accurate, as we might expect from one of the
most prestigious law schools in the world. With the kind of arrogance
we have grown to expect from Canadian prosecutors, Joseph C.
Bellows, Q.C. Crown Counsel, Criminal Appeals and Special Prosecutions
wrote this
letter which claims to present true facts but is only the prosecutorial
side in upcoming litigation. See also the Jury
Rights Project
Larry
Fisher Jury selection article
What are the
government sponsored law education
pages teaching?
We found this link on the Sask. Social Services page.That juries are there to bend the law!
See number
J14 on this link!. Saskatchewan Court of Appeals decisions in
the Latimer case: Majority (Tallis and Sherstobitoff) in
R v. Latimer
Dissent by Chief
Justice Bayda | Jury goes nuts
in Roby Trial, May 6, 1999 | Prosecutor rebuked for jury notes :
Feb. 1999 by Kirk Makin: Entertaining and scary New page devoted to Gillian
Guess and her efforts to defend herself against the corrupt
justice machine
 The
Jury System in Canada is completely compromised by gag orders
which apply to citizens who are called to serve it. It is clear
from the stories on this page that prosecutors routinely break
the law by investigating, manipulating and pressuring jurors
because they are fully aware that most people think this is how
the system works. How many jurors are out there who have suspected
they were wrongly investigated by the police, instructed by the
crown, or manipulated in some other way but are afraid to mention
it because authorities threaten them with legal reprisals? Randy
Kirkham actually believed that what he did was legal, and stated
publicly that other prosecutors did it. In Saskatchewan, the
R.C.M.P. has often functioned as the private police force of
the government. How many R.C.M.P. officers have participated
in this wholesale jury tampering? It is time for more people
like Gillian Guess to go public. injusticebusters encourages citizens with first hand
experience of crimes against the jury system to contact
us!
Kirkham
told the press that he hadn't done anything different from other
prosecutors who got the RCMP to poll jorors. An Ontario case
suggests he may have been telling it like it is. The good news
is that a judge in Ontario says it is very, very wrong! This
story shows prosecutor Alain Godin to be even more inventive
than Randy!
National Post
on Gillian
Guess. | As Randy
Kirkham gets the axe, (and about time, too!) Gillian Guess continues to insist on
justice.
injusticebusters spring 1998 quickquiz on juries
Both these
people were charged with obstructing justice. One was found guilty
and the other was acquitted. Can you match the verdict to the
accused?
 Randy Kirkham : Saskatchewan Crown
Prosecutor who secretly ordered RCMP officers to interview potential
jurors in the Latimer trial to discover their views on mercy
killing
Kirkham acquitted of charges
The first Canadian prosecutor,
charged with jury tampering, has been found not guilty of attempting
to obstruct justice.A judge in Battleford, Saskatchewan ruled
that crown prosecutor Randy Kirkham did not try to stack the
jury in Robert Latimer's first murder trial.
Kirkham prosecuted
Robert Latimer in 1994 for the killing of his disabled daughter.
The court heard
he instructed police to collect information on jurors including
their views on mercy killing.
Kirkham is exonerated. Maybe
he is training for head of Public Prosecutions, Richard Quinney's
job. An inability to tell right from wrong seems to be part of
the job description. injusticebusters have been calling for Kirkham's
firing since this website went up in July, 1998. February, 1999
we are pleased to report it has happened.
Gillian
Guess : single mom serving on a jury for an 8 month murder trial
who had a fling with an accused.
Guess found guilty of charges
On August 24th, 1998 Gillian
Guess was given a sentence of eighteen months to be served in
the Burnaby Women's Correctional Institute. She was released
five days later on appeal bail. The grounds for appeal are abundant
and excellent.
Gillian Guess
was sentenced to 18 months for having a fling with a defendant
while serving on his jury. Could it be that Gillian Guess is
being punished for the ultimate crime against patriarchy -- not
taking it seriously?
Meanwhile, Guess is appealing
an 18 month sentence after having been found guilty of a crime
which does not even exist in Canadian law
Background to the Randy
Kirkham case as reported by CBC Newsworld
Latimer prosecutor faces
charge
June 16, 1997
An unusual preliminary hearing
is scheduled today in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. The hearing
involves Randy Kirkham, the prosecutor in Robert Latimer's murder
trial. Latimer was charged with killing his severely disabled
daughter.
Kirkham was discharged when
it was discovered he had RCMP officers ask prospective jurors
about their views on mercy killing.
The crown will try to prove
that by doing that, Kirkham was trying to stack the jury against
Latimer.
Latimer prosecutor to learn
fate this week
1997/06/17
Randy Kirkham should find out
in a few days whether he will face a trial for obstruction of
justice.
There was a preliminary hearing
yesterday in Saskatchewan for the government lawyer, who has
been under suspension without pay for a year.
Kirkham was the prosecutor
in Robert Latimer's murder trial. Latimer was charged with killing
his severely disabled daughter. Kirkham was discharged when it
was discovered he had RCMP officers ask prospective jurors about
their views on mercy killing. As a result of these allegations,
Latimer's conviction was overturned and a new trial was ordered
for later this year.
This is believed to be the
first time in Canada that a prosecutor has faced criminal charges
for job-related actions. The crown will try to prove that Kirkham
was trying to stack the jury against Latimer.
Trial opens for Latimer
prosecutor
May 4, 1998
A trial began Monday for a
Saskatchewan prosecutor charged with obstructing justice in the
Robert Latimer case. Randy Kirkham allegedly instructed police
to ask prospective jurors about their views on mercy killing,
abortion and religion.
Kirkham's trial is expected
to last two weeks. It will take place in the same Battleford
courthouse where Latimer has twice been convicted for killing
his severely disabled daughter.
Kirkham was charged two years
ago over his handling of Latimer's original trial in 1994. Latimer
was found guilty of second-degree murder for killing Tracy with
carbon monoxide.
Kirkham is accused of preparing
a questionnaire for police to use and allegedly knew they had
spoken with some jurors directly. He allegedly failed to tell
Latimer's lawyer or the trial judge about the interviews.
The Supreme Court ordered a
second trial for Latimer because of jury tampering allegations
Gillian Guess tells her own story on her own website.
injusticebusters
has reprinted a
background piece by Heather Bird of the Toronto Sun.
This page was first posted
as being about two people charged with "jury tampering".
This was not accurate and we have changed it to the right charge.
Gillian Guess pointed this out to us and offered the following
observations:
We were both charged with "Obstruction
of Justice - Sect. 139.2" of the CCC which is a different
charge than jury tampering. They knew they couldn't charge me
with jury tampering as not one juror testified that I swayed
them. Sect. 139.2 is a very broad charge which encompasses all
behavior known to man.
It is a catch all section which
a corrupt system will use to its advantage. They can hang you
with it or clear you with it. There is no ryhme nor reason except
dirty pool!! The judge's final charge to the jury in my case
was that they could convict me if they found that I was in a
position of "potential for conflict of interest" -
never before has this been declared a crime. One T.V. talk show
host said that every man on earth could be convicted of sexual
assault if all it took was "potential"!! A disgustingly
evil system!
Cheers & thanks again.
gg.
injusticebusters say this:
So Randy Kirkham got a
year's back pay and a complete whitewash. When he was first charged,
he said he didn't do anything any different than other prosecutors
do! In other words Saskatchewan prosecutors think it is perfectly
fine to use the RCMP as their private investigators to scope
out the jury before a trial. And then they get to be exonorated
by their own bosses who got them to do it in the first place!
Shame Shame Shame on
Saskatchewan Justice!
back to
top of page
Prosecutor
rebuked for jury notes:
Crown attorney rated
potential murder-trial
jurors on his view of their likelihood to convict
KIRK MAKIN, Justice Reporter, Globe and Mail, February 17,
1999
A Crown attorney assigned to
a double-murder trial was wrong to secretly compile research
on the ideological leanings, criminal records and personal habits
of prospective jurors, according to a ruling from an Ontario
Court judge.
Prosecutor Alain Godin produced
the list after soliciting the help of 20 police officers, parole
officers and others to help determine which members of the jury
pool were most likely to convict defendant James Perlett.
Beside each of the dozens of
names on the list, Mr. Godin made notations such as: "Good
guy. Strong beliefs. Could convict. Son an idiot." Or, "significant
drinking and driving, alcoholic."
Jurors, chosen in open court
by defence and prosecution, are supposed to be impartial triers
of fact, not biased in favour of either side.
Mr. Perlett was charged with
fatally shooting his mother and father, Carole Ann and James
Perlett, on March 22, 1996, at their Fort Frances home. The trial
took place over the past few weeks in Thunder Bay.
The jury research was first
disclosed to defence lawyer Dan Brodsky almost a year ago. Mr.
Brodsky said he would not make an issue out of it, provided the
Crown supported his application to move the trial from Fort Frances
to Thunder Bay.
Months later, after other irregularities
were revealed, Mr. Brodsky and defence counsel James Lockyer
resurrected the jury-research issue as part of a motion to stay
proceedings in the case.
Crown counsel David MacKenzie
conceded to Mr. Justice Terrence Platana of the Ontario Court's
General Division that Mr. Godin's actions illustrated, at the
very least, "a clear lack of judgment."
Last October, Judge Platana
concluded that Mr. Godin's conduct prejudiced Mr. Perlett's right
to a fair trial. He also ruled that the Crown was wrong not to
disclose:
The fact that an uncle of Mr.
Perlett, Bradley Holmes, had been arrested several months before
the murders and charged with breaking and entering at the Perlett
home.
The fact that a scientist from
the Centre of Forensic Sciences changed his opinion about blood-spatter
evidence around the time that a fellow scientist came to very
different conclusions.
Judge Platana said that while
the incident smacked of poor procedure and communications by
CFS, he could not find any nefarious motives behind it. He said
that in general, it would be going too far to punish the Crown's
shortcomings by staying the charges.
The Perlett jury retired on
Monday to consider its verdict, leaving the press free to publish
the result of pretrial motions.
According to law, the Crown
and defence at a criminal trial are entitled to know the name,
address and occupation of potential jurors. During the jury-selection
process, both sides may reject a prescribed number of potential
jurors based on this information plus their instincts.
Mr. Godin went considerably
further. His research led him to note intelligence levels, marital
status and likelihood of convicting. He tended to equate honesty,
stability and a predisposition toward hard work as reliable indicators
of individuals likely to convict Mr. Perlett.
"Prozac," said one
notation. "Cannot handle stress." Another remarked
that an individual was a social worker: "Bleeding heart.
Could not convict," it said. Another identified a member
of the jury pool as the son-in-law of a judicial officer. "Power
trip," the note concluded. "Could convict."
Mr. Brodsky said yesterday
that when Mr. Godin was cross-examined during the motion before
Judge Platana, he acknowledged having conducted similar jury
research on other criminal cases.
Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Lockyer
both urged the Ministry of the Attorney-General to look into
other cases in which the Crown may have obtained a biased jury
by looking into the background of jurors.
"If the Crown got a biased
jury, I think these cases should be brought back before the court
and any convictions should be reviewed, because in my mind they
are likely to be unsafe," Mr. Lockyer said.
CROWN ON JURY POOL
Some of prosecutor Alain Godin's
notes on prospective jurors:
Dim bulb.
Too old. Drunk.
Young mother. Pro-police. Could convict.
Work for CBC. Smart. Doesn't care for police.
Rebellious. Doesn't like cops.
Few bricks short.
Bob's wife. Could convict. Husband says so.
Gun club guy. Could convict.
Intelligent, Chatty Cathy nickname. Could convict.
Good, hard working guy. Could convict quickly.
Randy's wife's secretary. Thinks Jaimie guilty.
Day care. Hate to convict. Bleeding heart.
Separated. Abusive complain from wife.
Reported drugs to police. Solid person. Knows guns.
Bickering
Roby jurors plead to step down
Judge excuses one, tells others to
put rivalries aside
By Peter Edwards and Nick
Pron Toronto Star Staff Reporters (1999)
Poisonous relations between
squabbling jurors deciding the fate of John Paul Roby nearly
brought the seven-month trial to a sudden end yesterday before
cooler heads prevailed.
At one point, three of the
jurors sent letters to the trial judge saying they couldn't continue
because tensions in the secretive deliberations were so heated
they feared for their health. One juror, a pregnant woman, worried
about her safety.
But late last night, the jurors
agreed to go back to their hotel, sleep on their differences,
and try again this morning to reach a verdict on the 57 charges
of sexual abuse against the former usher at Maple Leaf Gardens.
One juror, the woman about
seven months pregnant, was excused, leaving the other nine men
and two women to try to reach a verdict in their seventh day
of deliberations.
Yesterday's events, described
as ``bizarre'' by a senior crown official, offered a rare glimpse
into jury deliberations, which usually aren't disclosed by law.
But when five letters from
the jurors were read out in open court by Mr. Justice Victor
Paisley, they described a jury room in turmoil, including:
Accusations that one juror
was unbalanced, verbally abusive, even threatening in his language
as he pounded on a table.
One juror being told twice
to ``shut the f--- up.''
The jury foreperson complaining
about being on the verge of a breakdown, saying that his authority
was being undercut by two rivals who he beat out for the post.
He resigned as foreperson yesterday and it's unclear if a new
one will be appointed.
The pregnant woman saying she
couldn't continue if one abusive juror remained on the panel.
A juror being accused of trying
to ``sabotage'' the decision-making process.
Three jurors refusing to stay
in the same room in the University Ave. courthouse with the other
nine after court was recalled late last night.
Throughout the tumultuous day,
the 56-year-old Roby sat calmly, chatting quietly with his lawyers
and security guards every time court was reconvened to discuss
the letters.
He has pleaded not guilty to
sexually abusing 42 boys and girls over a 30-year period, beginning
in the early 1960s. Many of the alleged assaults took place at
the Carlton St. hockey shrine, the former home of the Toronto
Maple Leafs.
Roby's lead lawyer, Steven
Skurka, had asked Paisley to declare a mistrial after one of
the letters was read out in court, telling the judge that ``the
matter is over,'' and that nothing could be done to ``resuscitate
the matter.''
But Crown Attorney Jim Hughes,
while acknowledging that the ``jury was at the point of collapse,''
brushed that suggestion aside, urging Paisley to give the jurors
a pep talk, followed by a good night's sleep.
That's what Paisley did, at
one point saying he was going to tell them to ``smarten up.''
The judge gave the jurors two
such pep talks - in legal terms, an exhortation.
``You are in as good a position
as anyone can be to make the decision in this case . . . the
fact that the decision is a difficult one is not a valid reason
for declining to make it.''
Paisley's view of the letters,
which he said had to be read out because free societies depended
on open courts, was that they just revealed the emotions of what
goes on in a jury room, but not the actual deliberations themselves.
The jurors who wrote letters
to the judge minced no words in describing the heated tensions
behind closed doors.
``I may be on the verge of
a breakdown,'' wrote one.
That juror complained of continued
verbal abuse from a couple of other jurors in particular, two
who had wanted to be the foreperson.
``Due to continued verbal abuse,
one or two other jurors have requested removal from jury duty.
I do not wish to be part of a jury where those who are more delicate
are culled from the jury in this way. These are committed citizens
who hated to leave the jury,'' wrote the foreperson before resigning.
One juror was singled out by
three jurors for being particularly abusive. But later, nine
other jurors rose to his defence, saying they disagreed with
that description of his behaviour.
Wrote another juror, after
the first pep talk from Paisley: ``I was hoping that today would
be a day whereby the jurors could get back to the roles I felt
honoured to have been given. We returned to the hotel to start
again. The same juror told another juror in the room that she
should `shut the f--- up.' He said this twice.''
Court opened yesterday morning
with Paisley telling court he had received a note from the foreperson,
complaining that high stress levels made it impossible for him
to carry on.
Three more notes were sent
to the judge through the day - a second from the former foreperson
and two from other jurors.
``I regret to inform you that
due to a very high and unhealthy stress level I am currently
unable to cope with the responsibility of foreman,'' the juror
wrote.
``. . . In fact, there was
at least one juror who felt her safety was at risk,'' the foreperson
wrote in his note to Paisley.
Yesterday's tensions were an
abrupt change in mood from late last week, when jurors could
be seen smiling and joking with each other.
On Saturday, the pregnant juror
had to make a visit to hospital, and she had another visit on
Monday with her family physician, who gave her clearance to continue
on the case.
Other jurors had hoped to travel
to Niagara-on-the-Lake for a Sunday visit, but instead were driven
to High Park to commune with nature, free from newspapers, television
or contact with others.
A juror who's active in the
stock market was frustrated to hear that a ban on contact with
newspapers includes the stock pages.
Another juror asked the judge
if they're entitled to an evening beer. Jurors are allowed an
evening drink, if they pay for it themselves.
The jury deliberations were
rife with rivalries and tensions, court heard, with one juror
in particular losing control of his temper.
``The juror became very loud
and accused 10 jurors of conspiring against him for the purpose
of silencing his opinion and output,'' the foreperson wrote the
judge. ``He became very loud and was pounding his hands on the
table and yelling.''
The foreperson continued that
his job has been made impossible by the angry juror and another
juror.
``I believe that this juror
along with another (the two who ran for foreperson against me
- were not elected) appear to be sabotaging the deliberations
by constantly challenging my decision, process and integrity,''
he wrote.
Paisley urged jurors not to
get too hung up on the title of jury foreperson.
``It is no more than a courtesy
to fellow jurors that one juror is able to guide the others in
their decision,'' Paisley told them. ``. . . There's no greater
credit in having served as chairperson.''
Paisley told court that things
should be cooled somewhat, as he is ordering that all further
deliberations be carried on in the air conditioned comfort of
a nearby hotel, rather than the ``oppressive'' conditions of
the courthouse at University Ave. and Armoury St.
CBC Ideas: Trial
by Jury, January 1993
|
Truth can never be told so as to be understood,
and not be believ'd. 