Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

462 posts / 0 new
Last post
pookie

cco wrote:
Mr. Magoo wrote:

Here's something to consider:  the right to be tried "by a jury of your peers" does not specifically mean you have a right to be tried by a jury of people who look like you, go to the same church as you, or believe as you do.  But whatever else it does mean applies solely to the defendant and never the Crown.

If memory serves, as inherited from the British, the principle originally meant that the jury would be drawn from the same social class you (the accused) were: nobles got a jury of nobles, and peasants got a jury of peasants. It wasn't exactly an egalitarian principle then, however nice it sounds today. It was institutionalized surrender to entrenched class distinctions. It never meant a jury of the victim's peers.

It is also highly unlikely to ever be deemed, today, to include a representative component to any particular jury.  "Peers"  means, simply, fellow citizens.  

6079_Smith_W

Nice to have you keeping us all honest Magoo, but maybe your argument is better directed at the lawyer who actually did turn away every Indigenous person, leaving zero, rather than those who are concerned about that imbalance. I wasn't hoping for 50 percent. If even one person out of those four had gotten on that jury I expect there would at very least have been a different conversation.

And "technical insight"? Ya think what happened had anything to do with technical insight? Even the judge underscored in his charge that hangfire was a rare occurance, and clearly that didn't make any difference.

On a related issue, several people here in SK pointed out that with only 200 of the subpoenaed 750 showing up for jury duty, how much of that shortfall was related to cancellation of bus service by the province last year. Speaking of us all being equal.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Nice to have you keeping us all honest Magoo, but maybe your argument is better directed at the lawyer who actually did turn away every Indigenous person, leaving zero, rather than those who are concerned about that imbalance.

I was only addressing what it even means to talk about that "imbalance".

If there were "too many" white jurors, does that mean that some jurors are inherently biased?

If some jurors are inherently biased, doesn't "peremptory challenge" make sense, then?

Quote:
If even one person out of those four had gotten on that jury I expect there would at very least have been a different conversation.

Since this trial seemed to come down to reasonable doubt, what do you suppose that one juror might have said that would turn it all around?  What would that one juror (or, even, six such jurors) have seen in the evidence that others could not?

Quote:
And "technical insight"? Ya think what happened had anything to do with technical insight? Even the judge underscored in his charge that hangfire was a rare occurance, and clearly that didn't make any difference.

OK.  So then what would six Aboriginal jurors have done differently? 

I'm not saying I agree with this verdict, in the context of it making the most sense (or even in the context of it representing truly "reasonable" doubt).  But if the whole thing is to hinge on whether or not there were Aboriginal jurors then I think we need to just be forthright and say whether Aboriginal jurors are innately more fair, more contemplative or more honest than non-Aboriginal jurors.  Or whether we think those Aboriginal jurors would have been quicker to convict.  Or... something else that you can please tell us.

ed'd to add:

Looking at some of your upthread posts, it seems like perhaps you believe the jury, such as it was, was biased, and ready to jump on the chance to acquit their dudebro.  Is that a fair read?

 

 

6079_Smith_W

These are are two separate issues, Magoo.

Yes, I think the jury screwed it. Considering I am not the prime minister, there is nothing wrong with me saying that. Their decision really does not jive with the evidence.

The question of shutting Indigenous people out of the legal system is an entirely different, though related question. And never mind making sure we don't go overboard and railroad poor white defendents (or any defendent, for that matter), what did happen in this trial is that four Indigenous people were called as prospective jurors, and every one of them was challenged.

I have a problem with that, and the fact that it resulted in no one Indigenous person being on that jury.

It goes beyond the question of whether that resulting jury is biased because of it. The appearance of that refusal is enough to taint the process by showing that Indigenous people are not welcome.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
what did happen in this trial is that four Indigenous people were called as prospective jurors, and every one of them was challenged.

I asked upthread, a day ago,

me wrote:
Did the Crown reject anyone?

I would assume that they wouldn't reject anyone on the grounds that they look Aboriginal.  So if they did... why?  And if we don't know, then why do we know who the defense rejected but not who the Crown rejected?

Quote:
It goes beyond the question of whether that resulting jury is biased because of it. The appearance of that refusal is enough to taint the process by showing that Indigenous people are not welcome.

I'll suggest again that if you're the defense counsel for someone accused of carjacking, you probably don't want any jurors who were carjacked.

Do you genuinely believe that if this were a case of, let's say, an Asian-Canadian shooting another Asian-Canadian, either the Crown or the defense would squander their peremptory challenges getting rid of Aboriginals, because they're
"unwelcome"??  Please. 

6079_Smith_W

Again, kind of a backhanded argument, considering what the outcome of that process was - zero Indigenous representation.

And however you want to spin it (nice try, but the imbalance in our legal and corrections system isn't about Asian people.), in this case it has all the appearance of targetting prospective jurors based on race. Not only has that specific reason been ruled unconstitutional in the U.S., there are jurisdictions which have done away with  peremptory challenges altogether because they are considered unfair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge

And I missed one of your questions. One can't say for sure what difference it might make, but there is one thing a single juror could do: break a unanimous verdict of not guilty. I didn't expect him to be convicted, but neither did I expect him to be found not guilty.

I'm shocked that no one on that jury did, even though they were all white.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
in this case it has all the appearance of targetting prospective jurors based on race. Not only has that specific reason been ruled unconstitutional in the U.S., there are jurisdictions which have done away with  peremptory challenges altogether because they are considered unfair.

Yes.  As I said, some states, and the U.K. (at least).

And I'm totally OK with getting rid of them, too.  So long as we all agree that whatever twelve jurors the lottery chooses, we're not going to complain..

I just fear that the first time the lottery chooses twelve frightened old homeowners for a burglary case, we'll have to revisit this and talk about how we can make "better" juries.  If you're pretty confident that won't ever happen then let's go with the first twelve.  No more rejecting by either side.  You in?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that this jury was not properly instructed as to the concept of reasonable doubt. The expert testimony should have settled the issue and they should have been instructed accordingly. Its like the Judge allowed fake news into evidence.

I also think we should not have preemptive rejections. Lawyers should be able to question witnesses and make objections based on things like an apprehension of bias and the Judge should make the decision.

I have a real problem with moving in any direction that will lead to race as a criteria for juries or anything else for that matter.  The very concept leads to absurdities like would my mixed race nephews be allowed to sit on a white or a black jury? If it is a black jury what method will be used to determine whether their skin colour looks more like their mother or their father. If you don't have a status card can you sit on an Indigenous jury and if you can what is the criteria for determing that you are not too white? Of course I know people who have status cards and look very much like settlers so what again are going to use as the determing criteria?

 

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that this jury was not properly instructed as to the concept of reasonable doubt. The expert testimony should have settled the issue and they should have been instructed accordingly. Its like the Judge allowed fake news into evidence.

 

Did the expert testimony clearly address to the jury the significance of the unusual bulge in the fatal bullet? How frequent or rare is such a bulge? I think the unusual bulge in the bullet was a key aspect in swaying the jury. I think the prosecution should have gotten an internationally renowned expert in munitions to explain to the jury why the bullet had an unusual bulge and the odds of such a bullet appearing and the odds of such a bullet causing a hangfire.

I read somewhere that some people feel that the prosecution fumbled the case and that some wanted the prosecution replaced because of their incompetence.

pookie

I think the result here is directly tied to the Crown's prosecution of the case. It apparently barely challenged Stanley's account on cross.  A number of its witnesses admitted that prior statements had been fabricated.  

The judge's decision to permit the evidence about hang fire might be challenged, but given that the Crown didn't really object...

I see no evidence that the jury was improperly instructed on reasonable doubt.  That their verdict was weird isn't sufficient indication.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, the criticism I heard was levelled at everyone involved, from the judge on down, and in particular the prosecutor. I was shocked at what he left out of cross examination. It was like it was over before he started. There were a number of people who went over that evidence and pointed out things he failed to bring up that made Stanley's account impossible.

Not that it would have necessarily made any difference.

And kropotkin, it isn't a matter of ensuring spots so much as not being able to challenge someone drawn from the pool for no valid reason, and especially a reason that seems to be targetting based on race. I know it's understandable that we might want to question doing things in a new way, but when the specific group of people - Indigenous people - who are most impacted by the justice system are systematically shut out it is a big problem that needs to be dealt with. 

And in the states it finally was dealt with by making it illegal. For now I am glad to hear that the federal government intends to bring new legislation to change this, and I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Just to be clear, getting rid of peremptory challenges, does not mean that lawyers cannot challenge the choice of a juror, just that they have to provide a reason.

Pondering

pookie wrote:

Honest question.  How is the Crown supposed to prosecute a murder trial, and defence to defend against it, consistent with cultural traditions?  Does that apply only to certain cultures?

From the description of what went on at the trial it would be offensive to more than just indigenous peoples. Asking a witness to hold a gun in the same manner as the accused murderer does not seem at all necessary to me. It seems very theatrical. 

pookie

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

Honest question.  How is the Crown supposed to prosecute a murder trial, and defence to defend against it, consistent with cultural traditions?  Does that apply only to certain cultures?

From the description of what went on at the trial it would be offensive to more than just indigenous peoples. Asking a witness to hold a gun in the same manner as the accused murderer does not seem at all necessary to me. It seems very theatrical. 

That detail would be directly relevant to careless use of a firearm.  In any event, that wasn't the culturally specific complaint.  It had to do with identifying Boushie's body from photographs.  Homicide cases are fun for exactly no one, trial judge on down.

In any event, you haven't answered the question of how the parties are supposed to go about proving or disproving a murder case beyond a reasonable doubt if they have to worry about the feelings of witnesses.  That is the reality.  

6079_Smith_W

And as I mentioned once already, the original editorial wasn't about limiting or changing courtroom procedure. Not once did Cuthand call for that. He did however asking us to consider how hard it was on the people most affected by it. That specific thing about reverence for the deceased was something non-Cree people would not even be aware of.

As for the firearm, I am not sure it would have made any difference, but I think it would have been good for those jury members thinking the gun might go off by accident to pick it up and pull that trigger themselves.

I don't consider that a stunt at all, but rather something that should bring all that theoretical bafflegab into perspective.

 

Pondering

How many ways is there to hold a gun? As I understand it the basic facts were not in dispute. As far as I know no one was asked to put themselves in the position of the victim. The vehicle wasn't in the court room. If it's necessary to re-enact it would seem necessary to have the entire scene replicated. 

pookie

Pondering wrote:

How many ways is there to hold a gun? As I understand it the basic facts were not in dispute. As far as I know no one was asked to put themselves in the position of the victim. The vehicle wasn't in the court room. If it's necessary to re-enact it would seem necessary to have the entire scene replicated. 

If by "basic facts "you mean that Stanley was holding the gun that shot Boushie, then yes.

I think the term covers a bit more than that, and that lots and lots of them were in dispute here.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Just to be clear, getting rid of peremptory challenges, does not mean that lawyers cannot challenge the choice of a juror, just that they have to provide a reason.

What reasons are acceptable?

If you don't know (and FWIW, I don't either) what reasons do you feel should be? 

I can't help thinking that any and all reasons brought forth by either the defense or the Crown would distill down to "we think this person would be biased against/for the defendant".  Whether that's assumed because of their age, sex, ethnicity or life experiences, I simply can't imagine any reason that doesn't come down to potential bias.

But I'm dying to hear more about what the "good" reasons would be for dismissing a potential juror.

6079_Smith_W

Do you not have google, Magoo?

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Challenge_for_Cause 

Considering there have have been lots of people complaining about Trudeau talking about this trial because he might allegedly taint future jury selection I am surprised you wouldn't have been aware of that one. 

 

 

Unionist

I don't think tweaking the jury selection process will accomplish anything. Canadian society is profoundly racist against Indigenous people. It doesn't start or end in the courtroom.

Other point: Stanley used a Tokarev TT33, a semi-automatic pistol originally manufactured for the Soviet Red Army. Am I the only one (other than Murray Sinclair, to my knowledge) who finds it revolting that a person in our society should own, let alone wield, any handgun?

 

Pondering

pookie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

How many ways is there to hold a gun? As I understand it the basic facts were not in dispute. As far as I know no one was asked to put themselves in the position of the victim. The vehicle wasn't in the court room. If it's necessary to re-enact it would seem necessary to have the entire scene replicated. 

If by "basic facts "you mean that Stanley was holding the gun that shot Boushie, then yes.

I think the term covers a bit more than that, and that lots and lots of them were in dispute here.

And the fact that the victim was shot in the back of the head. Were there claims that the way he was holding the gun led to the mal-function. Was there some dispute as to how the gun was being held? 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Do you not have google, Magoo?

I wish I did!  Because these acceptable grounds are hilarious!

Quote:
(b) a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused;

?

Quote:
(c) a juror has been convicted of an offence for which he was sentenced to death or to a term of imprisonment exceeding twelve months;

So, no death-row jurors?  Or no executed corpses?

Quote:
(d) a juror is an alien;

That goes double if the alien lacks a skeleton, and is supported by a system of fluid-filled bladders.  (Big shout-out if you catch that reference).

Quote:
(f) a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or both official languages of Canada, where the accused is required by reason of an order under section 530 to be tried before a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or who speak both official languages of Canada, as the case may be.

OK.  I only quoted that one because whoever wrote that clearly doesn't speak any official language of anywhere other than the official language of those whose language is official and whose official language is one or more of the official languages that constitute a reasonable reliance on the official language of the court, notwithstanding other official languages.

6079_Smith_W

Recognizing the right of First Nations people to vote didn't do away with racism in Canada either, Unionist. It was still a good idea. Same goes for preventing someone sitting on a jury because of race.

That also isn't the only issue regarding treatment of Indigenous people in this case. The Boushie family just launched an appeal into the investigation of RCMP showing up at Boushie's mother's place with guns drawn.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/colten-boushie-death-rcmp-mis...

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist wrote:

I don't think tweaking the jury selection process will accomplish anything. Canadian society is profoundly racist against Indigenous people. It doesn't start or end in the courtroom.

Other point: Stanley used a Tokarev TT33, a semi-automatic pistol originally manufactured for the Soviet Red Army. Am I the only one (other than Murray Sinclair, to my knowledge) who finds it revolting that a person in our society should own, let alone wield, any handgun?

 

im with you 100%. Handguns are machines designed to kill people. Nobody needs that. Ban them all. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Handguns are machines designed to kill people. Nobody needs that. Ban them all.

Over the last year or two there have been several publicized cases of angry zealots using a vehicle to mow down some pedestrians, in the name of "the cause".  But we wouldn't say that their vehicle is "designed to kill people" even when we see how good it is at it, particularly if you're an angry zealot who can't procure a handgun.

If people pounding nails is a problem, is the crux of it whether they use a hammer, the flat side of a crescent wrench, or a rock?

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If people pounding nails is a problem, is the crux of it whether they use a hammer, the flat side of a crescent wrench, or a rock?

For starters, I'll say that as a committed moderate on the gun issue, essentially any post I make on it will piss someone off (if my post is particularly insightful, it'll often piss both sides off). I'm neither on team "ban handguns" nor on team "issue everyone concealed carry licenses". But the old "is it the person or the tool?" question has answers that are backed up by data.

80% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides. Intuitive conventional wisdom is that if someone's suicidal, it doesn't really matter if you take one method away from them; they'll find another. Intuitive conventional wisdom is also completely wrong. The leading predictor of suicide risk is having a firearm in the home, and even in places guns aren't as much of an issue, blocking one method of suicide has been shown not just to displace suicides, but to reduce them. (The British suicide rate fell dramatically after coal gas ovens were phased out; similarly, putting netting and fencing up on popular suicide bridges reduces suicide rates measurably.)

On the Stanley/Boushie case, if you believe him about the hangfire, obviously if he hadn't had a gun, Boushie would still be alive. If you believe he murdered Boushie and made up the story about the hangfire, Stanley not having a gun might've led to numerous different outcomes. He might've stayed in the house and called the police, he might've gotten into a fistfight with Boushie, or he might've taken that hammer, knife, or rock and killed Boushie anyway. He would've had a much harder time defending a hammering as accidental, though.

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Handguns are machines designed to kill people. Nobody needs that. Ban them all.

Over the last year or two there have been several publicized cases of angry zealots using a vehicle to mow down some pedestrians, in the name of "the cause".  But we wouldn't say that their vehicle is "designed to kill people" even when we see how good it is at it, particularly if you're an angry zealot who can't procure a handgun.

If people pounding nails is a problem, is the crux of it whether they use a hammer, the flat side of a crescent wrench, or a rock?

How much does the Devil pay for advocates these days? Because with your hackneyed provocateur "arguments", you're definitely not earning minimum wage.

But it's ok. That's the role you play here. And I kind of love it.

Handguns should be confiscated today, without compensation. Let the target shooters wail and cry and moan. If one person's life is spared, it will be worth it. This is Canada, after all. Not that murderous brutal anti-human society to our south.

And I repeat. Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is that Colten Boushie was killed in the first place. Deal with the root causes of that. Not the aftermath.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

There's more than one use for a car. A handgun is really a single use tool. 

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

There's more than one use for a car. A handgun is really a single use tool. 

But but but but but guns don't kill people, people kill people!

I can't believe the media haven't even questioned why this asshole would have such a murderous weapon lying around the farm house.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

And I repeat. Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is that Colten Boushie was killed in the first place. Deal with the root causes of that. Not the aftermath.

You're right that is probably a good thing for those of us who are  of the culture responsible for that violence to focus on. After all, a lot of white people still seem to think Stanley did nothing wrong. So it might be a good place for us to start.

At the same time, what the family has been calling for in the wake of this tragedy is justice. And one of the main reasons they are in Ottawa is asking specifically for judicial reform. One of the things we were asked to do last weekend was to write the justice minister to ask for that change.

So absolutely an important part of the work is for us white people to stop killing Indigenous people. But that and the work to include Indigenous people in the justice system aren't mutually exclusive. They are both important.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boushie-verdict-ottawa-parliament-meetin...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/aboriginal-justice-inquiry-colten...

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Post #77 (cco) Great job. Would quote if it wasn't one of my pet peeves.

Paladin1

Hi all, hope all are doing well. Got PMd and excited thinking someone wanted to visit but alas, it was a question if I could shed light on the hangfire business.   Why not :)

I'm no firearms expert. I've been shooting for 30+ years, shoot hundreds if not thousands of bullets a year, shoot in competitions and teach people how to use everything from a handgun to anti-tank missile launcher.

So hangfires, when they do happen, will mostly happen in stuff like rockets, grenade launchers, missiles, mortar bombs. Bigger stuff. It's very very uncommon in small arms (handguns rifles and shotguns) because it's such a simple mechanisim. In the 3oish years I've been shooting I've never seen itin person. Not once. I've only seen it on youtube like the video of the idiot pointing the shotgun at his head and it going off.

A hangfire is when the "gun" works fine but the ammunition is faulty. Normally in a gun when you pull the trigger, the firing pin hits the primer (like a cap)which causes a spark that ignights the gunpowder creating pressure which sends the bullet out of the barrel.  In a hangfire everything works except the powder catches on very slowly (think damp tinder) and thats where you get the pause from pulling the trigger until the bullet shoots off.   In theory once it fires the gun will continue to act as normal.

I haven't read much of the details of the case but the damaged shell case tells me something could be wrong with the gun or ammunition BUT I don't see how a hangfire would cause that. I say could be because simetimes cases just get damaged, gun still works fine.   A bullet needs the encompassing barrel to create the pressure to launch the projectile with terminal force.  Here is a video of someone heating up a bullet and it going off inside a pot. As you'll see the bullet doesn't have enough force to escape the pot and the side of the case is blown out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ad9e0mO8Q4

There are other videos of ammunition being set on fire and it just pops and sizzles, not like we see in movies.

 A bullet that fires after a hangfire would act like any other bullet (and so would the gun) and not be cause for a damaged case in itself.

Hangfire explination seems weird and more of an explination that causes enough doubt to not be proven wrong.   I'll mention however that it's not surprising that the court could not recreate a hangfire when tested because it's totally dependent on the ammunition and chance. It's like trying to recreate picking winning lottery numbers in a court room.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I read this yesterday - Stanley's defense is without an "air of reality".

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mb575a/colten-boushie-why-gerald-stan...

Stanley’s defence was that he killed Colten Boushie, 22, as a result of a hang fire, which is a delay between the time a person pulls the trigger and the time the round is fired. But experts say it’s a very rare occurrence and that in Stanley’s case in particular, it seems very unlikely that this is what happened.

“It’s only possible for them to have acquitted him if they sort of systematically ignored all the evidence that suggested he should be guilty of something and accepted every single aspect of his rather ridiculous defence,” A.J. Somerset, Ontario-based author of Arms: the Culture & Credo of the Gun, told VICE.

6079_Smith_W

Another thing that is not in that story. Stanley claimed that he did not know there was a bullet in that chamber, but that pistol has a large  slide which moves back only when the chamber is empty. Even with the hang fire, it would have been obvious if there was a bullet in there or not. The prosecutor chose not to press him on that point.

By some weird coincidence, that is the same model of gun that was used to kill Leo Lachance in P.A. in the early 90s. The same case in which the judge for this case was a lawyer for the RCMP.

6079_Smith_W
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It seems to me that perhaps one reason why the improbable "hang fire" explanation was accepted was because there really wasn't any other theory to fall back on except Stanley deciding to shoot a sleeping person in the head at close range, for lulz.

I'm absolutely not suggesting that that couldn't happen.  But asking the jurors to believe that an old farmer finally got his opportunity to "thrill kill" someone isn't an easy argument either.  And it's got its own holes, too.  Like, why would someone out to kill choose to only load three cartridges, then waste two of them shooting at clouds?

6079_Smith_W

He said he thought the gun was empty.

There is no way he could have not known there was still a bullet there.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.  But speaking of unbelievable coincidences, how do you suppose he got that one casing to deform?

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
He said he thought the gun was empty.

And if he was scared for the safety of his family, would he not have checked and reloaded before going out?

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
I can't believe the media haven't even questioned why this asshole would have such a murderous weapon lying around the farm house.

Because when a fox or wolf or coyote comes onto your farm and attacks one of the animals on your farm, you're not going to be able to talk nicely to the attacker and convince it to stop.

Bacchus

As regards the jury challenges, do we know they were preemptory? Or part of the usual discovery about a juror. Which I know about since I've somehow managed to do it 3 times in Toronto including one time over a killing by a somolian immigrant and a cop. They asked very specific questions and background info on that one and tossed lots of people (myself included) over the answer

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I can't believe the media haven't even questioned why this asshole would have such a murderous weapon lying around the farm house.

Because when a fox or wolf or coyote comes onto your farm and attacks one of the animals on your farm, you're not going to be able to talk nicely to the attacker and convince it to stop.

Ok thanks, I didn't understand why we needed citizens owning semi-automatic weapons, but you've explained it very cogently.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And if he was scared for the safety of his family, would he not have checked and reloaded before going out?
Quote:

And if he wanted to go full-Rambo, why wouldn't he have just filled the whole magazine?  You're not obligated to fire every cartridge, but who wants to find themself out of ammo after a couple of shots?  That also doesn't make much sense in the "thrill killer" context.

6079_Smith_W

Bacchus wrote:

As regards the jury challenges, do we know they were preemptory?

The lawyer for the family said they were challenged with no questions, and no reason given.

Bacchus

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

 

 

 

As regards the jury challenges, do we know they were preemptory?

The lawyer for the family said they were challenged with no questions, and no reason given.

 

How do they know that?

6079_Smith_W

He was in the room, Bacchus. And at the rally on Saturday he spoke about how members of the family reacted as each prospective Indigenous juror was sent away.

Stanley's lawyer said "challenge" and nothing else. That is a peremptory challenge.

 

Bacchus

Ok that answers it. Thanks

Pogo Pogo's picture

But you personal example is still a good point to consider. Getting rid of peremptory challenges does not eliminate jury stacking.  It just means a few extra steps and an argument that the judge will buy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'm, personally, OK with juries being chosen by lottery, with no exclusions.  So long as we're all OK with that.  And that means that if the lottery chooses 12+2 of the "wrong" jurors, we agree that that can happen, that's how our chosen system can work, and move on without moaning about it.

Who's in??  Who's not??

Pogo Pogo's picture

Depends.  How much damage can a biased juror do?  How important is a unanimous verdict? Are Henry Fonda fans allowed?

Pages