Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses jury selection.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Jury selection is a very important issue and it has been the subject of a lot of media attention lately. Christopher Husbands was convicted after a jury found him guilty of a serious criminal offence and was particularly upset by his jury verdict. He appealed on the basis of the process used for the jury selection and challenged a number of jurors on the basis of racial bias, alleging that they would not be able to decide the case fairly.
The judge proceeded to impose a process called a “static juror” where members of the perspective jury are assigned to quiz other members of the perspective jury to determine whether or not they are racially biased. However, the criminal code was amended to remove the original process in which jurors are quizzed in this particular case.
Husbands proceeded to challenge this new process, arguing that it was unfair to his right to have a fair trial, but he lost.
The Supreme Court of Canada missed their opportunity to set the record straight for the public with respect to preemptory challenges and the make-up of juries. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court missed the chance to correct an issue that is of national importance, perhaps not in Husbands case, but outside the facts of his case and to put some quell on the discussion that has been very emotional and difficult for a lot of people.
Watch the video for more.
See more: