Verdict Watch Discussion Thread

[robynhood]

excellent post ..so much info ...and thank you Ont. Mom for sharing....Robynhood.

 

[robynhood]

On the video above ..Reporters from the trial openely say they think it will take afew more days t hear a verdict from the jury...I am sure you all are anxious to see a result IMO...Jut like I am and many others here in Ontario...robynhood

 

[DeaconBrodie]

You'd think the rest of the jurors would show some type of sympathy then? Would DM'S council really argue to have her to stay? Wouldn't that be grounds for appeal or something if a verdict couldn't be reach do to emotional attachment?

There is no right of appeal to a hung jury besides which, jury deliberations are secret so the cause would never be revealed.

If you were a lawyer and you suspected that one of the jurors had formed a bond with your client, would you not argue to keep him or her on the jury?

In a trial of this length, the lawyers would already have formed very definite opinions about which direction each of the jurors may be leaning just by continuously observing their facial expressions, posture and demeanour.

 

[ILoveDateline]

If the juror had an infatuation with Millard, I can't imagine Millard's counsel not arguing strenuously for her to remain on the jury. The fact that the Crown agreed to having her removed and both defence counsel were silent makes that seem unlikely to me, but stranger things have happened....

Maybe she had a case of the heebiejeebies that she couldn't shake. Who knows. Since counsel on both sides were passed the note containing the reason (as per XiolaBlueX) if it did read, I [emoji173] DM, what? DMs team says "oh, let her stay..." and the TL and TD LOL.

Ya, sounds more like a family emergency to me.

Yes, I'm inclined to think so, too, or health reasons not widely known by the rest of the jury.

ETA: in all seriousness, there was a legitimate reason (agreed to on all sides) that will remain private.
Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[MsSherlock]

Ya, sounds more like a family emergency to me.

I would imagine that a trial of this length can take it's toll on the Juror's relationships on the home front. If a relationship is shaky to begin with, or a persons partner is extremely controlling or jealous, I can imagine that being sequestered for an undetermined length of time may cause some big problems. Actually, I'm surprised that for a trial this long that they've only lost one Juror to a death in the family and now this one. MOO

 

[palisadesk]

The verdict against the one accused stands. The accused who the jury hung on may get a new trial or may not - that is up to the Crown to decide.

Yes, but further to that, hung juries are rare in Canada. I don't foresee such a thing in this case, because it's clear both accused were up to their eyeballs in this crime. What will be at issue among jury members with differing interpretations of the evidence is the degree of culpability, based on how much planning and deliberation and what mindset each accused demonstrated, as far as the evidence suggests.

I don't foresee anybody holding out for a total acquittal for either party. There was no evidence presented that TB's killing was accidental (and no irrefutable evidence that is wasn't), so it's possible that a juror might hold to the car theft gone wrong scenario and believe one or the other or even both should be convicted of manslaughter, because he/they knew they were committing an illegal act, and in bringing a gun (or guns -- no evidence for two guns, but I'm not ruling that out), they knew there was possibility of causing someone's death. That would set the stage for a manslaughter verdict. I don't see any "pathway" to an acquittal in all of this for either of them.

So, if some jurors are less sure that the Crown has proved sufficient planning and deliberation for m1 in either case, the likelier outcome is for the jury eventually to agree on a guilty of m2 verdict. In terms of public safety, it still carries the same sentence (life) with no guarantee of parole, just a possibility of getting parole earlier. However, the sentencing judge can recommend a later parole eligibility date than that required by law (15 years). The jury can include that in its recommendations if it so wishes.

I can't see jurors who are firm on M1 being willing to go down to manslaughter, but I can see either a juror who believed the accused deserved a manslaughter conviction being willing to move up a step, and a juror who felt murder 1 was appropriate being willing to move down a step and meet in the middle. Compromise is very common in verdicts in contentious cases where emotions run high, even though jurors try to set their emotions aside.

Remember the Sammy Yatin trial in Toronto not long ago, where the officer who shot the boy was charged with second-degree murder. The jury took quite a while to come to a verdict (several days, would have to look it up), and it is likely there was a spectrum of strongly held views on what the appropriate verdict should be. There might even have been one or more who felt the officer should be acquitted, because he was "just doing his job." But while I don't know any inside information, the opinions of ordinary people who talked about the case were quite divided, so I suspect the jury was, also. There was too much evidence that the officer's action was excessive for them to acquit, but apparently not enough to convince all the jurors that murder was the appropriate verdict. I expected a compromise of manslaughter, but they came back with guilty of attempted murder, which was almost certainly a compromise.

I expect something similar will happen in this case, that is, that jurors will eventually agree on a verdict for both, though some will have to consider moving up or down a step in the ladder of culpability they find the accused guilty of.

Jurors can't discuss their deliberations afterwards at any time, but they can share their feeling, reactions and personal thoughts. Most lengthy jury trials result in a lasting bond between those who participated, whether they were in agreement or not. It's not unusual for them to have get-togethers every so often later on, or keep in touch in other ways. There's something about an extraordinary shared experience that usually creates a connection that lasts after the experience is over. Think veterans, survivors of disasters (the people stranded in Gander after 9/11 come to mind), and many similar extraordinary life experiences.

Although hung juries are not common here, they do occur. Here are recent examples:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/26/hung-jury-in-murder-trial

http://www.theprovince.com/news/kam...s+mistrial+with+hung+jury/11847596/story.html

 

[DeaconBrodie]

I would imagine that a trial of this length can take it's toll on the Juror's relationships on the home front. If a relationship is shaky to begin with, or a persons partner is extremely controlling or jealous, I can imagine that being sequestered for an undetermined length of time may cause some big problems. Actually, I'm surprised that for a trial this long that they've only lost one Juror to a death in the family and now this one. MOO

Yes, that is why they select two extras and since they can return a verdict with as few as 10, they start with 14 knowing that they can lose as many as 4 and still be good to go.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I would imagine that a trial of this length can take it's toll on the Juror's relationships on the home front. If a relationship is shaky to begin with, or a persons partner is extremely controlling or jealous, I can imagine that being sequestered for an undetermined length of time may cause some big problems. Actually, I'm surprised that for a trial this long that they've only lost one Juror to a death in the family and now this one. MOO

IIRC, 3 jurors have been discharged? Wasn't there one juror discharged on the 1st day of trial as well?

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[XiolaBlueX]

I want to go to court room if possible when the verdicts read, but worried I might miss it coming out. If anybody (a few ppl even) is into texting to notify :fence: That would be awesome

 

[hellkat2]

So much for my theory that the jury would take 4 hours. That was way out in left field.

 

[DeaconBrodie]

So much for my theory that the jury would take 4 hours. That was way out in left field.

It usually takes them more than 4 hours to choose a foreperson and decide what they are going to have for lunch.......

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

It would be interesting to know how a jury goes about selecting their foreperson. Perhaps first there are volunteers, and then a vote? A few likely scenarios?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Claroon]

Well, I wouldn't think one can just volunteer to be excluded without a valid reason. It seems that the judge, crown and defense lawyers all agreed in this case. Maybe it was the juror Shannon Martin said stared at DM throughout the trial. Perhaps she felt she couldn't be impartial any longer. Who knows. I tried googling "bizarre reasons jurors are excused"; sadly, it didn't yield anything particularly interesting. JMO.

I guess what I'm saying is I wasn't surprised someone went. Sounded like there was surprise in the audience.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Ya, sounds more like a family emergency to me.

or a medical one.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Why do you say that?

All of the actions MB is alleged to have done: went to a hotel -not police- after DM's arrest, leaving that suspicious trailer on her driveway, going back to clean off the prints, smuggling DM's letters out of prison to CN, sketchy real estate deal(s)...

Sounds like a permissive parent used to damage control.

 

[DeaconBrodie]

It would be interesting to know how a jury goes about selecting their foreperson. Perhaps first there are volunteers, and then a vote? A few likely scenarios?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They are given no instructions other than to choose a foreperson, but over the course of the trial there is usually one person who stands out as being personable, intelligent, articulate and organized and they choose him or her by a quick show of hands.

Of course, everything that we know about how juries typically work comes from the U.S. where they are allowed to discuss it afterwards, so there is the assumption that it would likely be the same in Canada, but nobody knows for sure.

 

[hellkat2]

It usually takes them more than 4 hours to choose a foreperson and decide what they are going to have for lunch.......

Well I hope that hotel they are staying in isn't cooking with cheese because they could be there a month.

 

[JuneBug67]

Does everybody believe they could be impartial jurors in this case? I believe I could be in this case, but I can almost certainly think of cases where I know I couldn't be. A recent one was the Forcillo case. Just enrages and disgusts me every time I think about it. I literally have a visceral hatred for his face, which I think I might have had in any circumstance. Something fundamentally there in a very negative way for me. I totally would have had to recuse myself for that.

 

[hellkat2]

They are given no instructions other than to choose a foreperson, but over the course of the trial there is usually one person who stands out as being personable, intelligent, articulate and organized and they choose him or her by a quick show of hands.

Of course, everything that we know about how juries typically work comes from the U.S. where they are allowed to discuss it afterwards, so there is the assumption that it would likely be the same in Canada, but nobody knows for sure.

Lets hope their foreperson isn't the one who quit today.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Well I hope that hotel they are staying in isn't cooking with cheese because they could be there a month.

That only applies to kids.

(Get your Mac and Cheese magazine in the mail?)