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

[Tamarind]

BBM - Maybe you missed my question Tamarind so I'll ask again, do you have a link saying PHs are held behind closed doors? I've searched but cannot find the answer to your assumption. TIA. :sigh:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/si-2012-7/page-26.html

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well be careful about assuming what goes on in that other room. Sure, they don't get into a person's demographics in Canada. Surely they are asking people what they know of the trial and if they are actively rooting for one side or another on social media.

I believe reporters can access jury member's names, can they not? How else does it become uncovered that people are writing on social media during a trial?

I think jurors legally have to be honest about their biases. The ideal juror has been touched by little information before this case goes to trial. If they get a DM groupie on the jury, it could be cause for a mistrial. You would expect the courts to do due diligence to prevent that.

I'm quite sure my friend said that the selected jurors were just taken to the trial courtroom for the trial to commence once they had enough people, and I do remember reading about the trial in the following days. The accused was already in the room while jurors were being selected as they had to face each other when the potential juror was called to the front. This is why, along with the previously linked article, I didn't feel that any further questions were made to those selected jurors when they were removed to the other courtroom. So I did some further digging and found these.

In a criminal trial, the prospective juror goes to the front of the courtroom and faces the accused. At that point, the person is either accepted by each of the lawyers or rejected by one of them.

The Crown attorney and defence counsel can reject a limited number of prospective jurors without giving a reason. That is known as a peremptory challenge.

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?

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/jury_selection_process.asp

The judge will ask if any members of the jury panel believe they should be excused from sitting on this particular case. Now is the time for you to speak up if you feel you have a reason to be excused, for example, you have a friend or relative who is involved in the case. You should also tell the judge if you have any sort of special interest in the case or a strong emotional response to the crime. For example, a close friend of yours may have been the victim of a similar crime, or the case may involve a crime against a child and you have a child the same age. The judge will decide whether to excuse you.

The names of potential jurors will then be picked at random from a box of cards containing the names of every member of the jury panel. If your name is picked, you will be asked to stand in the jury box so that you and the accused can see each other. The Crown Attorney and the defence counsel may ask you questions to help them decide whether to 'challenge' you.

http://www.legalinfo.org/criminal-law/jury-duty.html#Howarejurerschosen

So it appears that they either may or they may not ask additional questions, but that would have happened during the initial selection if it was going to. If they don't ask those types of questions, I guess they would need to trust that most jurors would be honest and ask to be excused due to a special interest in the case or a strong emotional response. Then again, one would have to wonder if those people who feel very strongly about an accused's guilt or innocence would volunteer that information or would want to be on the jury to help get the desired results. From the other linked article, it appears it would be mostly by pure chance that this would ever be discovered if not asked or provided voluntarily.

I believe that reporters would have access to jury member's names, if they were there for the jury selection, just not able to report them. I think most reporters would, by that time, be more interested in watching the trial than scouring through social media to see if any of them are writing on social media during the trial. Here are the guidelines for the media and the Canadian Justice System:

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_cjsm_en.pdf

IDENTIFYING JURORS
Section 631 (3.1) and 631 (6)
Rationale and Scope:Under section 631 (3.1), a judge may order that jurors be referred to in the
courtroom only be an identifying number, rather than by name.
In order to do so, the judge must be satisfied it is “in the best interest of the administration of justice”
and necessary “to protect the privacy or safety of the members of the jury.” If such an order is made,
the judge may rely on section 631 (6) to further impose a ban on publication of any information
that could disclose a juror’s identity if satisfied the ban “is necessary for the proper administration
of justice.”
When Imposed: A prosecutor may apply for this ban; in addition, a judge has the right to make this
motion without being asked.
Duration: Permanent.

I've never personally seen a case where jurors were identified, even after the trial was over, unless the juror themselves volunteered that information.

From the same Canadian Judicial Council document, regarding the presumption of innocence:

Presumption of innocence: Every accused, at every stage of a prosecution, has the right to be
treated as an innocent person until declared guilty by a judge or a jury. Journalists sometimes lose
sight of this concept, producing reports of arrests in which police and community members express
relief that a crime has finally been solved.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well I chose to focus on groupies and witnesses that are actively posting on this case on social media because there are legal implications to their behavior. If they lie to the court, they themselves may be charged and experience the court process in a whole new way.

I haven't seen any groupies OR witnesses actively posting on social media. If I recall correctly, even the famed letter writer was outed by a friend - both her fake name and her real name. Perhaps they are posting on the closed Facebook groups? If that's where they're posting, I would not have been able to see it. I would think the likelihood that those few groupies, if they exist, would actually be called for and selected as a jury member would be pretty slim anyway, or a very large coincidence.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

You misquoted my quote. I sue didn't write "Sure they do, it is quicker to accept a plea than to take it to trial. Less costly too, not just for the one taking a plea but for the 'system'. IMO"

In general, cases disposed of in adult criminal courts typically result in one of three decisions or outcomes. First, and most common, is a finding of guilt in which the accused person pleads guilty or is determined by the court to be responsible for having attempted or committed a criminal offence.Note 7 Second, case proceedings may be stopped or interrupted for a variety of reasons (e.g., lack of sufficient evidence or referral to an alternative measures program) resulting in charges being stayed (suspended for up to one year), withdrawn, dismissed or discharged at preliminary inquiry. Lastly, a relatively small proportion of cases result in an acquittal in which the accused person is found not guilty of the charges presented before the court.Note 8

In 2010/2011, a guilty finding was reached in about two-thirds (64%) of cases, a proportion that has remained relatively consistent over the past decade. Another 32% of cases were stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged at preliminary inquiry, and 3% were acquitted. The remaining 1% of cases resulted in another type of decision such as the accused being found not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial, the court's acceptance of a special plea, or cases that raised Charter arguments

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11646-eng.htm#a4

In all of Canada, over all adult criminal court cases, the guilty finding was 64% of cases. If you take that down to Ontario only, you will see that proportion of guilty findings drops down to about 56% - just over half of all adult criminal court cases. If you take that down further and sort the Canadian cases by offence, only 47% of homicide cases result in a guilty verdict.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11646/tbl/tbl04-eng.htm

Those aren't very good success rates for those who think that, if someone is arrested, they must be guilty. It also speaks pretty loudly about wrongful arrests and incarcerations, which I believe is what the original poster stated, rather than wrongful convictions. I'm sure a lot of those other 53% spent time in jail awaiting their trials or waiting for their charges to be withdrawn. But to look at the positive side, the low conviction rate could also help to account for the smaller percentage of wrongful convictions that we experience now.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

BBM - Maybe you missed my question Tamarind so I'll ask again, do you have a link saying PHs are held behind closed doors? I've searched but cannot find the answer to your assumption. TIA. :sigh:

UBM - Well if the accused were innocent they obviously didn't chose to waive their right to a PH. But again, they could be relieved it's not going to happen in two of the cases. I do really wonder why CN signed on the dotted line, choosing to waive her right to the PH.

BBM - Why do you think it is the AG who got final say on DI? The Crown insisted/asked for one (based on solid evidence in both TB and LB's cases), defense perhaps wasn't in agreement, therefore it became the decision of higher up, the AG. HTH and all MOO.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/si-2012-7/page-26.html

There seems to often be some confusion about the various "pre-trial" procedures in a criminal trial. Not necessarily in the correct order, ...

First there is the pre-trial conference, which is usually held behind closed doors with a different judge than the one who will be presiding at trial.

Then there are pre-trial motions, which are open to the public but under a publication ban, and are to determine what may or may not be allowed at trial.

Then there is also the preliminary hearing, which isn't happening in this case, which is like a mini trial that includes witnesses and evidence. This is also open to the public, but also still under a publication ban.

Not sure if these are the correct "legal" terminologies for these three proponents, but hope it helps to avoid future confusion.

If an accused did not want to have a preliminary hearing, or was "relieved" not to have one, they would simply need to waive that right. Since they didn't do that, the only option is for the Attorney General to approve or decline the Crown's request.

 

[Variant]

In all of Canada, over all adult criminal court cases, the guilty finding was 64% of cases. If you take that down to Ontario only, you will see that proportion of guilty findings drops down to about 56% - just over half of all adult criminal court cases. If you take that down further and sort the Canadian cases by offence, only 47% of homicide cases result in a guilty verdict.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11646/tbl/tbl04-eng.htm

Those aren't very good success rates for those who think that, if someone is arrested, they must be guilty. It also speaks pretty loudly about wrongful arrests and incarcerations, which I believe is what the original poster stated, rather than wrongful convictions. I'm sure a lot of those other 53% spent time in jail awaiting their trials or waiting for their charges to be withdrawn. But to look at the positive side, the low conviction rate could also help to account for the smaller percentage of wrongful convictions that we experience now.

JMO

Ah, statistics. According to the table you linked there was a 2 percent acquittal rate for homicides. By my reckoning that means that of the homicide cases that made it to trial in that year (that is, weren't stayed or withdrawn) there was an 95 percent conviction rate.

Last I heard the cases under discussion are still proceeding to trial.

 

[Tamarind]

Ah, statistics. According to the table you linked there was a 2 percent acquittal rate for homicides. By my reckoning that means that of the homicide cases that made it to trial in that year (that is, weren't stayed or withdrawn) there was an 95 percent conviction rate.

Last I heard the cases under discussion are still proceeding to trial.

2% for acquittal, 45% stayed or withdrawn, 15 % other and 47 % guilty.

Do you know what the 'other' refers to?

How many actually plead guilty? I think guilty pleas would be included in the guilty total. Even plea deals would be included I would think. So if 40% of the guilty total were a guilty plea with a plea deal that would leave 7% going to trial and 2% were acquitted. That's a much different projection. The table doesn't take a few things into consideration which could alter the interpretation IMO

 

[Variant]

2% for acquittal, 45% stayed or withdrawn, 15 % other and 47 % guilty.

Do you know what the 'other' refers to?

How many actually plead guilty? I think guilty pleas would be included in the guilty total. Even plea deals would be included I would think. So if 40% of the guilty total were a guilty plea with a plea deal that would leave 7% going to trial and 2% were acquitted. That's a much different projection. The table doesn't take a few things into consideration which could alter the interpretation IMO

I agree that some may have plead guilty - wish more of the convicted would plead up front.

My point is that that stats can be interpreted in many ways, the information presented in the table is limited, AD's presentation is no more "reality" than mine, and these numbers have no relationship to the cases under discussion.

 

[Tamarind]

I agree that some may have plead guilty - wish more of the convicted would plead up front.

Have you considered that some people who plea out are actually innocent but cannot afford to fight and take a lesser charge and sentence? I think this should be considered when expecting people who are charged to just accept guilt that may not be factual JMO

My point is that that stats can be interpreted in many ways, the information presented in the table is limited, AD's presentation is no more "reality" than mine, and these numbers have no relationship to the cases under discussion.

I'm sorry but I didn't see that as being your point from your post (#166), I do agree the table information is limited and from the table I can see that less than 50% of those charged with homicide ever receive a guilty verdict. I can also see that out of that figure many MAY have just plead out to a lesser charge. all MOO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Ah, statistics. According to the table you linked there was a 2 percent acquittal rate for homicides. By my reckoning that means that of the homicide cases that made it to trial in that year (that is, weren't stayed or withdrawn) there was an 95 percent conviction rate.

Last I heard the cases under discussion are still proceeding to trial.

What difference does it make whether they made it to trial? That's still 126 charges (45%) where the police and Crown thought they were guilty, but they either weren't guilty or there wasn't enough evidence to even get to trial or the Crown decided to discontinue prosecution for whatever reason. Either way, those charges did not result in a conviction. And many of the accused may have sat in a jail cell waiting for the elusive preliminary hearing before having those charges withdrawn or stayed.

Stats Canada only provides the "reality" of the actual statistics and is based on the total number of cases for the year. You can skew them any way you want, or ignore part of them, to get a more favourable result, but it doesn't alter the fact that only 47% of homicide cases resulted in a guilty finding.

 

[Tamarind]

What difference does it make whether they made it to trial? That's still 126 charges (45%) where the police and Crown thought they were guilty, but they either weren't guilty or there wasn't enough evidence to even get to trial or the Crown decided to discontinue prosecution for whatever reason. Either way, those charges did not result in a conviction. And many of the accused may have sat in a jail cell waiting for the elusive preliminary hearing before having those charges withdrawn or stayed.

Stats Canada only provides the "reality" of the actual statistics and is based on the total number of cases for the year. You can skew them any way you want, or ignore part of them, to get a more favourable result, but it doesn't alter the fact that only 47% of homicide cases resulted in a guilty finding.

Which says to me, that at east that many, did not have sufficient evidence to be charged in the first place, which brings into question the the validity of what is called evidence. For me it certainly questions the viability of charges laid by the police and sheds light on the fact that their beliefs and allegations are not always infallible as often seems to be the consensus IMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

2% for acquittal, 45% stayed or withdrawn, 15 % other and 47 % guilty.

Do you know what the 'other' refers to?

How many actually plead guilty? I think guilty pleas would be included in the guilty total. Even plea deals would be included I would think. So if 40% of the guilty total were a guilty plea with a plea deal that would leave 7% going to trial and 2% were acquitted. That's a much different projection. The table doesn't take a few things into consideration which could alter the interpretation IMO

The "other" would be things like not guilty on account of mental illness

45% would not go to trial and 55% would

Of cases that went to trial then,

3% are acquitted
23% are "other" (not guilty/insanity)
73% are guilty

 

[Alethea Dice]

Have you considered that some people who plea out are actually innocent but cannot afford to fight and take a lesser charge and sentence? I think this should be considered when expecting people who are charged to just accept guilt that may not be factual JMO



I'm sorry but I didn't see that as being your point from your post (#166), I do agree the table information is limited and from the table I can see that less than 50% of those charged with homicide ever receive a guilty verdict. I can also see that out of that figure many MAY have just plead out to a lesser charge. all MOO

I believe that those pleading to a lesser charge may be included under "Other". Other includes: "final decisions of found not criminally responsible and waived in or out of province or territory. Also includes any order where a conviction was not recorded, the court's acceptance of a special plea, cases that raise Charter arguments and cases where the accused was found unfit to stand trial."

You are correct, though, that people do sometimes plead guilty when they are innocent. They will plead to a lesser charge to get a lighter sentence, rather than risk losing at trial and getting a more severe penalty. They plead guilty to avoid, not only the financial costs of going to trial, but the psychological costs as well.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/04/25/guilty_plea_judged_to_be_a_fraud_on_the_court.html

http://www.aidwyc.org/losing-the-bargain-wrongful-convictions-in-plea-bargaining/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-do-the-innocent-plead-guilty/article1056220/?page=all

I wouldn't know how often this happens in homicide cases, but it shouldn't be ignored.

JMO

 

[Variant]

What difference does it make whether they made it to trial? That's still 126 charges (45%) where the police and Crown thought they were guilty, but they either weren't guilty or there wasn't enough evidence to even get to trial or the Crown decided to discontinue prosecution for whatever reason. Either way, those charges did not result in a conviction. And many of the accused may have sat in a jail cell waiting for the elusive preliminary hearing before having those charges withdrawn or stayed.

Stats Canada only provides the "reality" of the actual statistics and is based on the total number of cases for the year. You can skew them any way you want, or ignore part of them, to get a more favourable result, but it doesn't alter the fact that only 47% of homicide cases resulted in a guilty finding.

What relevance does this have to this thread, which is supposed to be about the case against DM and MS, where there has been no stay or dismissal? Do you expect that there is 53% possibility of this happening?

 

[Alethea Dice]

The "other" would be things like not guilty on account of mental illness

45% would not go to trial and 55% would

Of cases that went to trial then,

3% are acquitted
23% are "other" (not guilty/insanity)
73% are guilty

You may still have to adjust those numbers. The ones found not fit to stand trial would have to be removed from the total cases that went to trial.

 

[Alethea Dice]

What relevance does this have to this thread, which is supposed to be about the case against DM and MS, where there has been no stay or dismissal? Do you expect that there is 53% possibility of this happening?

It's really hard to say at this point. This is the Laura Babcock thread and since, so far, we have absolutely no details about any of the evidence that may or may not have been collected (other than a phone bill), it would be difficult to make a decision yet.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think the two first degree murder charges and the DI in the LB case pretty much tell you which way it's going. There must be a lot of evidence, good evidence.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I think the two first degree murder charges and the DI in the LB case pretty much tell you which way it's going. There must be a lot of evidence, good evidence.

Maybe. I'm just not willing to blindly assume that. I would need to have more information to make an informed decision.

(Maybe this is partly how we got on this subject? Not sure anymore.)

 

[Arnie M]

.

If you check out a lot of those "not guilty" verdicts it is usually because of a technicality , warrants not worded properly , rights violated slightly , witness not showing up , things like that.

It does not mean they didn't do the crime

Judges are fairly lenient if the accused has a bit of a sloppy defense , but if LE or prosecutors make a tiny slip the judge will toss the case in an instant.

A lot of people are caught red handed in the middle of a crime but get away with it because of judicial screw-ups

 

[swedie]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/si-2012-7/page-26.html

Tamarind your response (post #96) to my post #95, you said; 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

If you would have noticed in my post #95, throughout my whole post, I was referring to the PH = Preliminary Hearing not Pretrial Conferences which is what you linked. So the answer is yes, everyone and their Great Aunt could be in the courtroom if they chose, of course unless they are going to be called as witnesses. After they have fully completed their testimony, everyone and their Great Aunt could then be allowed to sit in the courtroom.

BTW I'll put some links up, including the one AD posted in the Court Appearances and Legal Terms, for you or anyone else who might like to brush up on how the court process works on murder cases. HTH and MOO.