Jury vetting

As I say in the article below from today's Toronto Star, it seems that some Crowns went too far trying to figure out what was in the jury pool. And that's wrong -- there must be a level playing field. That's why the AG has made it clear this conduct cannot continue. My sense is the jury vetting is fairly rare, but rare or not, it's wrong:

Secret juror screening spreads to Windsor

Lawyers demand action as mistrial shows practice isn't unique to Barrie
Jun 10, 2009 04:30 AM
Peter Small COURTS BUREAU

WINDSOR – A judge here has declared a mistrial in a murder case because the Crown had police do secret background checks on jurors – a development that has lawyers predicting a flood of defence challenges.

The ruling shows that the secret screening of potential jurors isn't confined to Barrie, which saw a recent mistrial and the dismissal of two jury panels last week.

Attorney General Chris Bentley said yesterday he still does not believe the practice is widespread.

But Greg Goulin, one of the defence counsel in the Windsor trial, predicted a rush of inquiries by members of the defence bar.

"There is no question that for every case under appeal, perhaps for every case where a jury sat, there's going to be probably letters going from the counsel that appeared in those cases to Crowns and prosecutors in those cases saying, `Did you vet the jury in this case?'" he told reporters.
...Bentley said yesterday that the province's chief prosecutor, John Ayre, has issued a directive to stop wide-ranging background checks and is phoning all Crowns' offices as a follow-up.
Where pre-existing lists of such broadly screened jurors do exist, Crowns are instructed to disclose them to the defence and "take whatever steps are necessary, including starting with a new panel," Bentley said in an interview.

In Windsor's Superior courthouse yesterday, after two months of hearing evidence in the first-degree murder trial of Richard Zoldi and Shane Huard, Ontario Superior Court Justice Bruce Thomas dismissed the jurors, informing them that he had declared a mistrial because of jury vetting. Thomas told jurors that he found the process in their case "to be offensive."

Under Canadian law, background checks on jurors are supposed to be conducted only for the most serious convictions. But among the comments written beside prospective jurors' names, provided to the Crown by a Windsor police detective, were "dislikes police."

Other jury candidates were cited as having criminal associates.

There were references to marijuana and other criminal charges (but not convictions), young offender records, provincial offence tickets, and people with conditional discharges or pardons for criminal offences.

The judge said he doubted that citizens who had dealings with the Windsor police contemplated that the Crown would be using their information when they were called up for jury duty.

Jury vetting beyond serious criminal checks has been condemned by critics as an invasion of privacy and, if not illegal, incorrect.

Under Canadian law, all Crown or defence counsel are supposed to know are the name, address and occupation of prospective jurors.

Under the Juries Act, the local court Sheriff must keep lists of jurors under "lock and key" until 10 days before jury selection.

But in three cases in Barrie challenged by defence counsel in recent weeks, the Crown has had the lists several weeks before jury selection and has been asking Ontario Provincial Police detachments and some local police forces in Simcoe County to conduct background checks on candidates.
...

The appeal is being watched closely by the attorney general's ministry and Ontario's information and privacy commissioner.

James Morton, a defence lawyer and past president of the Ontario Bar Association, said he believes that defence lawyers will now focus on this case more intensely and several will seek to re-examine old cases.

But he too said he does not believe the broad Crown-initiated jury screening is widespread. "It's not proper," he said.