Laura Babcock: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich charged w/ Murder in the First Degree #2

[swedie]

Blemished juror? I think the only blemished jurors will be those who have made up their minds based on press, blogs and other media, before seeing the facts of the case.

Due process is a necessary part of any proceeding and overlooking someones rights should not be taken lightly. IMO. Breaching Charter rights is also a factor prior to hearings/trials and during. Section 7 of the Charter certainly has me thinking about the rights that were not upheld as far as LB was concerned. DI's can cause problems for the crown and if they are banking on a blemished jury, the kind that I mentioned above, then they could well have an uphill battle trying to win their case. JMO

There is a process for that and it's called jury selection where both the prosecution and defense get a say in who serves based on the interview process. HTH.

No worries, no one is taking the accused rights lightly, trust and you will see in due time. The accused have been promised their rights to a fair trial and that is what they are going to get. Care to clarify what part of Chapter seven you're referring to as this right is multifaceted? And are you not the person who believes LB is still alive because LE haven't revealed evidence to her family, haven't turned over a body for burial or how they came to the conclusion she was murdered either July 3rd or 4th by DM and MS?

No the Crown isn't banking on a blemished jury whatsoever. As I explained above, the ones who are hoping/banking on a blemished juror would be the accused, it is their only hope of being acquitted or perhaps on an appeal. The Crown is banking on jurors who will take their civic duties seriously and render a verdict in the name of justice. There are also defense lawyers who bank on the same manner...knowing the evidence is solid and they have no hope in he!! of an acquittal for their client, that these lawyers have standards and morals to uphold; not all defense lawyers are scumbags where their main goal is only about getting guilty people off on some minor technicality.
ALL MOO.

In some cases, counsel pose a few pre-determined questions to each prospective juror to ensure that they will be able to decide the case free of prejudice or bias such as:

Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias be affected by anything you have heard or read about this case in the media?

This is called a challenge for cause.

Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General
The Annual Jury Selection Process
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/jury_selection_process.asp

 

[Arnie M]

.

I find it fascinating to observe how some folks appear distraught over the fact that those guys may actually be guilty as charged

... as though it would be a terrible miscarriage of justice or something

Absolutely fascinating.

.

 

[Juballee]

.

I find it fascinating to observe how some folks appear distraught over the fact that those guys may actually be guilty as charged

... as though it would be a terrible miscarriage of justice or something

Absolutely fascinating.

.

I don't see any distraught emotions in the preceding posts dealing with the possibility that the accused are not going through the due process as other defendants. Maybe I have misunderstood the meaning of distraught all these years, can you please point out the distraught posts you speak of? Thanks in advance.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't see any distraught emotions in the preceding posts dealing with the possibility that the accused are not going through the due process as other defendants. Maybe I have misunderstood the meaning of distraught all these years, can you please point out the distraught posts you speak of? Thanks in advance.

The defendants are going through due process, it's just that the facts and circumstances of the cases warrant DI's. We can't yet know that the DI's are warranted, but we are advised that they are.

What loss is it that these two are in jail? It's not as if they have jobs or children to get back to. It's not as if they are missed for their community or church involvement.

 

[Tamarind]

There is a process for that and it's called jury selection where both the prosecution and defense get a say in who serves based on the interview process. HTH.

Juries have been wrong.

Juries can only use what is presented, which is subject to interpretation, especially when evidence is circumstantial.

We have no way of knowing whether genuine reasons for any appeals will be applicable, should there be a guilty verdict.

We also have no way of knowing that there will be a guilty verdict or not.

HTHT

No worries, no one is taking the accused rights lightly, trust and you will see in due time. The accused have been promised their rights to a fair trial and that is what they are going to get. Care to clarify what part of Chapter seven you're referring to as this right is multifaceted? And are you not the person who believes LB is still alive because LE haven't revealed evidence to her family, haven't turned over a body for burial or how they came to the conclusion she was murdered either July 3rd or 4th by DM and MS?

I never trust what I don't know/feel, to do so would be very shortsighted and foolish. IMO It still remains to be seen whether or not the accused receive a fair trial. I guess if they are convicted and appeals begin then they will have begun for a reason(s) that were not considered to be fair. I am sure I am one of many people who believe LB is possibly alive. What relevance is that to anything?

No the Crown isn't banking on a blemished jury whatsoever. As I explained above, the ones who are hoping/banking on a blemished juror would be the accused, it is their only hope of being acquitted or perhaps on an appeal. The Crown is banking on jurors who will take their civic duties seriously and render a verdict in the name of justice. There are also defense lawyers who bank on the same manner...knowing the evidence is solid and they have no hope in he!! of an acquittal for their client, that these lawyers have standards and morals to uphold; not all defense lawyers are scumbags where their main goal is only about getting guilty people off on some minor technicality.
ALL MOO.

We have no idea what the crown is thinking or the accused for that matter. Maybe the accused are hoping truth prevails. I am sure there are scumbags in the crown offices as well as lawyer offices. No one has made any reference to this being an issue other than the fact that the crown comes from one perspective and the accused comes from a position of knowing the truth, which the crown often does not.

In some cases, counsel pose a few pre-determined questions to each prospective juror to ensure that they will be able to decide the case free of prejudice or bias such as:

Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias be affected by anything you have heard or read about this case in the media?

This is called a challenge for cause.

Yes, and I guess everyone will answer "No" because they believe they have that ability. The fact is that many people always think they are right about everything and I would guess that they will think they are right no matter what the truth is. Just my opinion.

 

[SnooperDuper]

In some cases, counsel pose a few pre-determined questions to each prospective juror to ensure that they will be able to decide the case free of prejudice or bias such as:

Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias be affected by anything you have heard or read about this case in the media?

This is called a challenge for cause.

Does that include social media?

I don't think that is a yes/no question. It is a discussion question.

 

[Tamarind]

.

I find it fascinating to observe how some folks appear distraught over the fact that those guys may actually be guilty as charged

... as though it would be a terrible miscarriage of justice or something

Absolutely fascinating.

.

What I find fascinating is the fact that many appear to have DM convicted already based on press and blog only, without hearing anything at a trial. Absolutely intriguing when you consider that a 'fair' trial is supposed to happen first. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

Does that include social media?

I don't think that is a yes/no question. It is a discussion question.

The media, would mean the media. That would mean anything accessible by anyone at any time on any media outlet in my opinion. If anyone can access it why would we disregard as being pertinent to the effect on whether or not it would alter their ability to judge without bias.?

 

[SnooperDuper]

The media, would mean the media. That would mean anything accessible by anyone at any time on any media outlet in my opinion. If anyone can access it why would we disregard as being pertinent to the effect on whether or not it would alter their ability to judge without bias.?

Certainly posting a certain viewpoint on WS, or operating a page that supports DM, would be evidence of personal bias though, right?

 

[Tamarind]

The defendants are going through due process, it's just that the facts and circumstances of the cases warrant DI's. We can't yet know that the DI's are warranted, but we are advised that they are.

Where is the evidence that the DI's are anything to do with facts ? Where is it advised that DI's are warranted? I can't seem to find anything to explain the true reason for them other than the crown wants them. I feel everyone should be given the right to preliminary hearings and that the decision should be that of the defense. They do have a right to face their accusers, why deprive them of that right from the outset. The whole case seems odd to me.

What loss is it that these two are in jail? It's not as if they have jobs or children to get back to. It's not as if they are missed for their community or church involvement.

It is every-bodies loss if one or both are innocent. If one man or woman that is innocent is oppressed, all of mankind is oppressed. IMO

It doesn't matter whether they have children, attend church or are active in a community - everyone has a right to be treated fairly. Right to a speedy trial is there to uphold the right of not being deprived of time when someone is languishing in jail and may be innocent. So many rights that apply to us all should be fought for. Any one of us could find ourselves blamed for something we didn't do. So regardless of guilt or innocence, at this point we have no idea what the outcome or truth is. Based on this it should be a case of looking for reasons why someone could be innocent instead of labelling with a guilty tab. It would be far easier for a jury to go in with a view to presuming innocence and if they see reason to find guilty then it would not be from a biased viewpoint. If someone goes in with a guilty view then it would be harder in my opinion to find them innocent as they have preconceived that they are guilty.

 

[Tamarind]

Certainly posting a certain viewpoint on WS, or operating a page that supports DM, would be evidence of personal bias though, right?

That depends. If someone is outright in saying they believe someone is guilty prior to a fair trial, then that is a bias. IMO
If someone is maintaining the presumption of innocence, prior to trial and will then assess what 'evidence' is presented at trial, then I don't believe they are bias, simply refusing to convict without evidence to support that claim.

 

[Tamarind]

You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions that I cannot correct due to publication bans. The DI is being used to get these cases to trial. The reasons for the delays will be made clear later on. It is wrong to assume that holding preliminary hearings would have been speedier. You should also keep in mind that "speed" is not the only reason for DIs:
http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch06.html

I am prepared to wait until trial before finding out why the DI's as it will save any inferences by media that may want the DI's to seem to be related to more sinister reasoning. Again JMO

From your link:

There are many reasons why an Attorney General or a Deputy Attorney General might consider a direct indictment in the interests of the proper administration of criminal justice. Witnesses may have been threatened or may be in precarious health; there may have been some delay in carrying a prosecution forward and, thus, a risk of running afoul of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Statement of Policy

The discretion vested in the Attorney General under s. 577 of the Code will be exercised only in circumstances involving serious violations of the law and where it is the public interest to do so.

Circumstances where it is in the public interest include the following:

1. where the accused is discharged at a preliminary inquiry because of an error of law, jurisdictional error, or palpable error on the facts of the case;

2. where the accused is discharged at a preliminary inquiry and new evidence is later discovered which, if it had been tendered at the preliminary inquiry, would likely have resulted in an order to stand trial;

3. where the accused is ordered to stand trial on the offence charged and new evidence is later obtained that justifies trying the accused on a different or more serious offence for which no preliminary inquiry has been held;

4. where delay (actual or anticipated) in bringing the matter to trial, has led to the conclusion that the right to trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms may not be met unless the case is brought to trial forthwith;

5.where there is a reasonable basis to believe that the lives, safety or security of witnesses or their families, informers, or justice system participants may be in peril, and the potential for interference with them can be reduced significantly by bringing the case directly to trial without preliminary inquiry;

6.where proceedings against the accused ought to be expedited to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice;

7. where a direct indictment is necessary to avoid multiple proceedings, for example, where one accused has been ordered to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry, and a second accused charged with the same offence has just been arrested or extradited to Canada on the offence;

8. where the age, health or other circumstances relating to witnesses requires their evidence to be presented before the trial court as soon as possible, or presents difficulties in having witnesses testify more than once;

9. where the holding of a preliminary inquiry would unreasonably tax the resources of the prosecution, the investigative agency or the court;

10. where a direct indictment is necessary to protect ongoing police investigations, operations and security where the requirement for such protection is of importance and can be significantly demonstrated.

I don't believe 1,2,3,5 and 7 apply. 8 may apply, but unlikely IMO. 9 is unlikely IMO, they made multiple visits to farm and didnt seem to worry about cost. JMO. 10 is unlikely IMO as I think almost three years should have it covered for investigations.

It's not odd at all. Just the opposite. The nature of this highly unusual situation with five related cases in two jurisdictions is a large part of why DIs are being used in two cases against the same accused. Except you have no idea how long things would have dragged on in any of these cases without DIs.

no-one has any idea how long these cases may have dragged on without a DI, but the fact that DI's exist now will possibly mean that situations will arise that have violated the rights of the accused.

They had video of Paul Bernardo torturing two girls. What need could there have possibly been for a preliminary hearing? If this wasn't an exceptional situation, then what is? Of what benefit to society would holding a PI have been? Another opportunity to screen the torture tapes? Bernardo wasn't going to plead guilty. He still thinks he should be let out of prison.

This isn't the Bernardo trial. I personally believe the DI's are a result of pressing time restraints due to Section 11b plus other time matters. JMO.

You may not know much about the cases but those who applied for and issued the DIs do. The fact that DIs were issued indicates that those who have studied the evidence believe the charges are correct.

I think all charges are believed to be correct, or else why lay them in the first place? From reading the supplied link I dont see where it implies that DI's were issued based on anything to do with the accused.

 

[Tamarind]

There's always a lot to be dealt with. If you have a prelim a year before the trial, the jury will almost certainly end up hearing about contradictions between testimony at the prelim and at the trial.

I'm not understanding what you've got against the use of direct indictment. It's an extraordinary power that is infrequently used.

Do you think there should be no direct indictment option, that such a power shouldn't exist? Or is your point that it's been wrongly used in this case?

Was it wrong to directly indict Paul Bernardo or Michael Rafferty?

Do you not see that a direct indictment can have certain societal and legal benefits?

Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/2005/DirectIndictment.pdf

Fact is, if the jury finds that some law be it DI or otherwise, to be not acceptable they have the potential to bring about jury nullification. It is quite a lawful process. Jury has more power than it realizes.

Personally I dont see any societal, legal or more importantly lawful benefits to omitting something such as preliminary hearings. JMO

 

[Arnie M]

What I find fascinating is the fact that many appear to have DM convicted already based on press and blog only, without hearing anything at a trial. Absolutely intriguing when you consider that a 'fair' trial is supposed to happen first. JMO

But this is not the trial , this is a true crime discussion forum , nothing we say or do here will have the tiniest influence on guilt or innocence ... and we have not "convicted DM" of anything .... what we have done is "convince ourselves" he is guilty

And we have plenty of reasons to presume guilt . Our society does not throw people in a holding cell for 2 years without very strong evidence of guilt.

When the details are brought up in the trial .... THEN is the time to question it from every angle , THEN is the time to be exacting , THEN is the time to critique everything , THEN is the time to quash rumors , THEN is the time to ignore personal opinions .... And that is the function of the defense lawyers , not us

Our function is to gossip about it , and try to educate ourselves about the evil next door so that we do not put ourselves in a vulnerable situation. When we put our car up for sale , the last thing we are expecting is to be killed by the millionaire down the road. The millionaire has heaped this upon himself. We have done nothing to him. We are not his enemy. Never have been.

 

[swedie]

Tamarind have you even considered the accused are actually welcoming the DI? Perhaps the accused don't want to sit through the PH and have to face their own families and friends, the victims' families and the public, and have everyone hear and see all the disgusting, evil and disturbing evidence against them? They will have to sit through the trial, perhaps they would rather opt out of the PH saving themselves the embarrassment and shame all over again. (That's if they are not psychopaths and are capable of having those feelings.) Could this be why CN has waived her right to the PI in TB's murder case? Or is she planning on being a witness for the Crown? Maybe she's just going to cooperate and agree with everything that goes on hoping someone will cut her a deal for being such a good Samaritan all around.
All MOO.

Christina Noudga — charged with being an accessory after the fact in the murder of Tim Bosma — appeared in court Wednesday to waive her right to a preliminary inquiry, opting to go straight to trial.

The 22-year-old — accused of helping her boyfriend Dellen Millard to “escape” in some way on May 9, 2013 — elected to be tried by judge and jury.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...cessory-to-murder-goes-straight-to-trial.html

Who is entitled to a preliminary hearing?
Lastly, not every charge entitles a person to a preliminary hearing. Preliminary hearings are only applicable to cases of a serious nature and proceeded by way of indictment. An accused may waive his or her right to a preliminary hearing; however, the Crown Attorney also has the right to conduct one regardless of the accused’s waiver.

https://robichaudlaw.ca/ontario-criminal-court-procedures/preliminary-hearings-criminal/

 

[Tamarind]

Tamarind have you even considered the accused are actually welcoming the DI? Perhaps the accused don't want to sit through the PH and have to face their own families and friends, the victims' families and the public, and have everyone hear and see all the disgusting, evil and disturbing evidence against them? They will have to sit through the trial, perhaps they would rather opt out of the PH saving themselves the embarrassment and shame all over again. (That's if they are not psychopaths and are capable of having those feelings.) Could this be why CN has waived her right to the PI in TB's murder case? Or is she planning on being a witness for the Crown? Maybe she's just going to cooperate and agree with everything that goes on hoping someone will cut her a deal for being such a good Samaritan all around.
All MOO.

I think the prelims are behind closed doors. Very unlikely that everyone and their Great Aunt would be there IMO. Innocent people do waive their right to a prelim for varying reasons, I simply believe it should be a decision the accused makes. JMO

who is entitled to a preliminary hearing?
Lastly, not every charge entitles a person to a preliminary hearing. Preliminary hearings are only applicable to cases of a serious nature and proceeded by way of indictment. An accused may waive his or her right to a preliminary hearing; however, the Crown Attorney also has the right to conduct one regardless of the accused’s waiver.

https://robichaudlaw.ca/ontario-criminal-court-procedures/preliminary-hearings-criminal/

If the crown can insist on one then so should the defense be able to do same IMO

 

[Tamarind]

But this is not the trial , this is a true crime discussion forum , nothing we say or do here will have the tiniest influence on guilt or innocence ... and we have not "convicted DM" of anything .... what we have done is "convince ourselves" he is guilty

And we have plenty of reasons to presume guilt . Our society does not throw people in a holding cell for 2 years without very strong evidence of guilt.

I don't agree. How would we know who reads these posts and the effect the posts have on people? There are also reasons to presume innocence and 'our society' has actually thrown innocent people in jail for a lot longer than two years. I have a feeling quite a few innocent people are currently in jails.

When the details are brought up in the trial .... THEN is the time to question it from every angle , THEN is the time to be exacting , THEN is the time to critique everything , THEN is the time to quash rumors , THEN is the time to ignore personal opinions .... And that is the function of the defense lawyers , not us

Our function is to gossip about it , and try to educate ourselves about the evil next door so that we do not put ourselves in a vulnerable situation. When we put our car up for sale , the last thing we are expecting is to be killed by the millionaire down the road. The millionaire has heaped this upon himself. We have done nothing to him. We are not his enemy. Never have been.

I don't agree. IMO The time is NOW to be presuming innocence, and THEN waiting for details to emerge at a fair trial. We as people should be taking rights very seriously and maintaining them at all cost IMO. I have no 'function' , I have opinions that I am airing on a forum as others do. I, as with others, should not be told when and where I should be questioning or critiquing... IMO. I have been ignoring many personal opinions since posting here, as I am sure many others have been. That is choice and it is ongoing and not to be determined 'then' IMO JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

That depends. If someone is outright in saying they believe someone is guilty prior to a fair trial, then that is a bias. IMO
If someone is maintaining the presumption of innocence, prior to trial and will then assess what 'evidence' is presented at trial, then I don't believe they are bias, simply refusing to convict without evidence to support that claim.

Personally, whatever one's position, I would say it's immoral (and illegal) to discount one's online activities when asked if one is biased, whatever one's opinion.

 

[Tamarind]

Personally, whatever one's position, I would say it's immoral (and illegal) to discount one's online activities when asked if one is biased, whatever one's opinion.

I doubt any potential juror will be asked about online activity. It would be the hang 'em high, online posters that would be biased in my opinion as i have clearly defined earlier. JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I doubt any potential juror will be asked about online activity. It would be the hang 'em high, online posters that would be biased in my opinion as i have clearly defined earlier. JMO

Not necessarily

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...bout-being-on-a-jury-in-canada-204552973.html