DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Jury Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REPORT JURY SERVICE (LRC 107-2013) © COPYRIGHT Law Reform Commission FIRST PUBLISHED April 2013 ISSN 1393-3132 LAW REFORM COMMISSION’S ROLE The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. The Commission’s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. Since it was established, the Commission has published over 180 documents (Working Papers, Consultation Papers and Reports) containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. Most of these proposals have led to reforming legislation. The Commission’s law reform role is carried out primarily under a Programme of Law Reform. Its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared by the Commission following broad consultation and discussion. In accordance with the 1975 Act, it was approved by the Government in December 2007 and placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. The Commission’s Access to Legislation project makes legislation in its current state (as amended rather than as enacted) more easily accessible to the public in the form of Revised Acts, as well as providing electronically searchable indexes of amendments to legislation and important related information. The Commission provides online access to selected Revised Acts. The indexes include the Legislation Directory of primary and secondary legislation and the Classified List of Legislation in Ireland. The Classified List is a separate list of all Acts of the Oireachtas that remain in force organised under 36 major subject-matter headings; work is underway to add in-force secondary legislation to this List. i MEMBERSHIP The Law Reform Commission consists of a President, one full-time Commissioner and three part-time Commissioners. The Commissioners at present are: President: Mr. Justice John Quirke Former Judge of the High Court Full-time Commissioner: Finola Flanagan, Barrister-at-Law Part-time Commissioner: Marie Baker, Senior Counsel Part-time Commissioner: Donncha O’Connell, Lecturer in Law Part-time Commissioner: Thomas O’Malley, Barrister-at-Law ii LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFF Director of Research: Raymond Byrne BCL, LLM (NUI), Barrister-at-Law Legal Researchers: Joseph Harrington LLB (Ling Franc) (Dub), BCL (Oxon), Barrister-at-Law Colm Kitson BCL (NUI), LLM (QUB), Barrister-at-law Kate McGovern LLB (Dub), LLM (Edin), Barrister-at-Law Roz O’Connell BA, LLB (NUI), LLM (Dub) Emma Roche-Cagney BCL (Clinical) (NUI), LLM (NUI) Denise Roche BCL (Int), Solicitor ACCESS TO LEGISLATION RESEARCH STAFF Project Manager: Alma Clissmann BA (Mod), LLB, Dip Eur Law (Bruges), Solicitor Assistant Project Manager: [Vacant at time of writing] Legal Researchers: Aileen O’Leary BCL (NUI), LLM (NUI), AITI, Solicitor Morgan Harris LLB (UKC), Barrister-at-Law iii ADMINISTRATION STAFF Head of Administration: Ciara Carberry Executive Officer: Deirdre Bell Staff Officer: Annmarie Cowley Clerical Officers: Ann Browne Joe Cooke Liam Dargan Legal Information Manager: [Vacant at time of writing] PRINCIPAL LEGAL RESEARCHERS FOR THIS REPORT Donna Lyons LLB (Dub), LLM (NYU), Attorney-at-Law Jane O’Grady BCL, LLB (NUI), LPC (College of Law) iv CONTACT DETAILS Further information can be obtained from: Head of Administration Law Reform Commission 35-39 Shelbourne Road Ballsbridge Dublin 4 Telephone: +353 1 637 7600 Fax: +353 1 637 7601 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lawreform.ie v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Commission would like to thank the following people who provided valuable assistance: Mr Brian Battelle, Courts Service Dr John Bosco Conama, Centre for Deaf Studies, Trinity College Dublin Ms Elfrieda Carroll, Sign Language Interpreting Service Mr Jerry Carroll, Bar Council of Ireland Ms Patricia Casey, County Registrar Ms Marian Chambers Higgins, County Registrar Dr Mark Coen, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin Ms Niamh Connolly, NCBI Ms Evelyn Conway, Sign Language Interpreting Services Mr John Coyle, Courts Service Ms Miriam Delahunt, Barrister-at-Law Mr Robert Eager, Solicitor Dr Claire Edwards, University College Cork Mr Michael Farrell, Senior Solicitor, Free Legal Advice Services Mr Remy Farrell, SC Dr Eilionoir Flynn, NUI Galway Ms Julianne Gillen, Deafhear Mr James Hamilton, former Director of Public Prosecutions Dr Conor Hanly, School of Law, NUI Galway Ms Gillian Harold, University College Cork Ms Liz Harrigan, Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service Ms Elizabeth Howlin, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Dr Niamh Howlin, Queen’s University Belfast Ms Geraldine Hurley, Courts Service Mr Matthias Kelly, QC, SC Mr Des Kenny, National Council for the Blind of Ireland Ms Lorraine Leeson, Centre for Deaf Studies, Trinity College Dublin Mr Brendan Lennon, DeafHear Ms Sarah Lennon, Inclusion Ireland Mr Pat McCarthy, Blind Legal Alliance Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, judge of the High Court Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey, former Chair, Northern Ireland Law Commission Mr Tony McGillicuddy, Barrister-at-Law Mr Dominic McGreahan, Irish Deaf Society Ms Lianne Meagher Reddy, Legal Research Intern, Law Reform Commission Mr Martin Moore, Jurisdictional Redesign Division, Northern Ireland Department of Justice Mr Liam Mulholland, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Fintan Murphy, County Registrar Ms Úna ní Raifeartaigh, SC Ms Betty O’Leary, Barrister Ms Caroline O’Leary, Sign Language Interpreting Services Mr Charles O’Mahony, Law Faculty, NUI Galway Ms Margaret O’Neill, Courts Service Mr Michael O’Neill, Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission Mr Damien Owens, Deafhear Mr Eddie Redmond, Irish Deaf Society Mr Noel Rubotham, Courts Service Ms Susan Ryan, County Registrar Mr Fintan Sheerin, Trinity College Dublin vi Mr Richard Shine, Department of Social Protection Mr Robbie Sinnott, Blind Legal Alliance Mr James Wallis, Department of Social Protection Ms Maria Walls, National Federation of Voluntary Bodies Full responsibility for this publication lies, however, with the Commission. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 A Background 1 B Scope of the Report 1 C Outline of the Report 2 CHAPTER 1 KEY PRINCIPLES OF JURY TRIAL AND JURY SERVICE 5 A Introduction 5 B Jury trial in the Constitution and background to the enactment of the Juries Act 1976 5 (1) Early History and Development of Jury Trial 6 (2) Juries Act 1927 7 (3) 1965 Reports of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure on Juries 8 (4) 1965 Report on Jury Service in England 9 (5) de Burca v Attorney General and the Juries Act 1976 9 C The Essential Components of Jury Service and Key Principles 11 (1) Jury service as a duty 11 (2) Representative Nature of Juries: Random Selection from a Pool of Potential Jurors 12 (3) Impartial and Independent Nature of Juries 13 (4) Jury as independent fact-finder, guided by the judge on matters of law 15 (5) Juror Ability or Competence 15 (6) General Secrecy of Jury Deliberations 16 (7) Summary of Key Principles 16 CHAPTER 2 JURY SELECTION AND EXTENDING QUALIFICATION FOR JURY SERVICE 19 A Introduction 19 B Jury Selection Process in Ireland 19 (1) The register of Dáil electors as the jury source list 19 (2) The Public Services Card as a possible juror source list 21 (3) The provisions on jury selection in the Juries Act 1976 23 C Extension of Qualification for Jury Service to Persons Other than Irish Citizens 27 (1) England, Wales and Scotland 28 (2) Northern Ireland 28 (3) Australia 29 (4) New Zealand 29 (5) United States 30 (6) Consultation Paper Recommendations 30 (7) Submissions and Final Recommendations 30 CHAPTER 3 JURY CHALLENGES 35 A Introduction 35 B Challenges Without Cause Shown: Peremptory Challenges 35 (1) Current Law in Ireland 35 (2) Comparative Approaches to Challenges Without Cause 36 (3) Consultation Paper Recommendations 38 (4) Submissions, further consultation and Final Recommendations 40 C Challenges for Cause Shown 42 viii (1) Current Law in Ireland 42 (2) Comparative Approaches to Challenges for Cause 45 (3) Consultation Paper Recommendations 46 (4) Submissions, further consultation and Final Recommendations 46 CHAPTER 4 CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT THE FUNCTIONS OF A JUROR 49 A Introduction 49 B Physical Capacity 49 (1) Current Law in Ireland 49 (2) Comparative and International Law Approaches to Physical Disability 53 (3) Consultation Paper Recommendations on Physical Disabilities 56 (4) Submissions and Final Recommendations on Physical Disabilities 57 C Mental Health and Intellectual Capacity 60 (1) Current Law in Ireland 60 (2) Comparative Approaches to Mental Health and Intellectual Capacity 60 (3) Consultation Paper Recommendations 62 (4) Submissions and Final Recommendations 62 D Reading and Language Capacity 63 (1) Current Law and Practice in Ireland 63 (2) Comparative and International Approaches 65 (3) Consultation Paper Recommendations 67 (4) Submissions and Final Recommendations 67 CHAPTER 5 INELIGIBILITY, EXCUSAL AND DEFERRAL 69 A Introduction 69 B Persons Ineligible for Jury Service: President of Ireland, Persons Concerned with Administration of Justice and Members of the Defence Forces 69 (1) Current Position in Ireland 69 (2) Comparative and International Law Approaches 70 (3) Consultation Paper Recommendations 72 (4) Submissions and Final Recommendations 73 C Persons Excusable as of Right 75 (1) Current Position in Ireland 75 (2) Comparative Approaches 77 (3) Consultation
Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Trial Consultants on Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Juror Verdicts: an Empirical Investigation

    The Impact of Trial Consultants on Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Juror Verdicts: an Empirical Investigation

    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2011 The Impact of Trial Consultants on Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Juror Verdicts: An Empirical Investigation Jennifer Burke Katz The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1949 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THE IMPACT OF TRIAL CONSULTANTS ON PERCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND JUROR VERDICTS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION by JENNIFER B. KATZ A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2011 Trial Consultants ii ©2011 JENNIFER BURKE KATZ All Rights Reserved Trial Consultants iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Harold Goldstein__________________________________ _____________________ ________________________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Maureen O’Connor________________________________ _____________________ ________________________________________________ Date Executive Officer Harold Goldstein_____________________________ Kristin Sommer______________________________ Charles Scherbaum____________________________ Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Trial Consultants iv Abstract THE IMPACT OF TRIAL CONSULTANTS ON PERCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND JUROR VERDICTS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION by Jennifer B. Katz Adviser: Professor Harold Goldstein Despite the proliferation of the trial consulting industry in recent years, we know virtually nothing about the impact that the use of a trial consultant may have on a jury.
  • Charging Language

    Charging Language

    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
  • Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/Lest.12098

    Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/Lest.12098

    Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/lest.12098 Copyright: This is the peer reviewed version of the above article, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lest.12098. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Date deposited: 27/07/2015 Embargo release date: 21 December 2017 Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth- Century England Kevin Crosby* The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has created several new offences regarding juror misconduct. While this legislation has been passed in response to jurors accessing improper ‘evidence’ online, it is wrong to treat juror misconduct as a new problem. The most famous case on this topic (Bushell’s Case) did not completely prohibit juror punishment, but the rhetorical force of the decision was such that penal practices have until recently been overlooked in the academic literature. This article argues that assessing the new offences is greatly helped by understanding how juror misconduct has been responded to in the past. Drawing on the language of Bushell’s Case itself, as well as new archival research, it argues that previous practices of juror punishment have largely depended on whether particular instances of misconduct related to the juror’s ‘ministerial’ or ‘judicial’ functions; and that ‘judicial’ offences (those relating to verdict formation) have been much less likely to be punished.
  • Juries Act 1974 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 23 May 2021

    Juries Act 1974 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 23 May 2021

    Status: Point in time view as at 01/12/2016. Changes to legislation: Juries Act 1974 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 23 May 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) Juries Act 1974 1974 CHAPTER 23 An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to juries, jurors and jury service with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. [9th July 1974] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act amended by S.I. 1986/1081, regs. 2, 51(6) C2 By Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 101(1), Sch. 12 para. 23; S.I. 1991/2208, art. 2(1), Sch.1 it is provided (14.10.1991) that in relation to any time before the commencement of s.70 of that 1991 Act (which came into force on 1.10.1992 by S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2) references in any enactment amended by that 1991 Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts. Commencement Information I1 Act wholly in force at 9. 8. 1974 see s. 23(3) [F11 Qualification for jury service (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall be qualified to serve as a juror in the Crown Court, the High Court and [F2the county court] and be liable accordingly to attend for jury service when summoned under this Act if— (a) he is for the time being registered as a parliamentary or local government elector [F3and aged eighteen or over but under seventy six] ; (b) he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since attaining the age of thirteen; and F4(c) .
  • Jury Selection in Federal Court

    Jury Selection in Federal Court

    Resource ID: 1-613-5747 Jury Selection in Federal Court JONATHAN S. TAM, DECHERT LLP, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw for more. This Practice Note addresses selecting a jury Exercising juror challenges (see Exercising Juror Challenges). in a federal civil case, including the applicable Conducting post-trial interviews (see Conducting Post-Trial Interviews). rules on picking a jury, the process and method for jury selection, researching prospective OVERVIEW OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS jurors and building juror profiles, conducting Although how a jury is selected varies among courts and judges, the voir dire, exercising peremptory challenges, process in federal court generally occurs in the following order: The court may first mail a preliminary, administrative questionnaire challenges for cause, and Batson challenges, to a randomly selected pool of prospective jurors from registered and interviewing jurors post-trial. voter or licensed driver lists to determine if these individuals appear qualified for federal jury service based on their age and ability to understand English (see Juror Qualifications). The prospect of a jury trial often keeps counsel and their clients The court mails summonses to an initial pool of randomly selected awake at night. Juries can be unpredictable, and jurors may have prospective jurors. The court then randomly selects a narrower preconceived ideas or biases that can escape counsel during the pool of prospective jurors from the initial pool, and calls them for a selection process. Some cases may be won or lost during jury specific case. selection, before opening statements or a single piece of evidence The judge presiding over the case determines whether any jurors is introduced.
  • Remote Court Hearings

    Remote Court Hearings

    Oireachtas Library & Research Service | Bill Digest L&RS Note Remote Court Hearings Rebecca Halpin, Parliamentary Researcher, Law Abstract<xx> July 2020 28 July 2020 This L&RS Note considers the use of remote hearings in Ireland during the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper describes the way in which remote hearings have been introduced in Ireland and the type of matters in which they are used. The paper then considers the difficulties associated with remote hearings, the need for legislative reform, and circumstances in which remote hearings may be unsuitable. The L&RS gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Dr Rónán Kennedy, School of Law, NUI Galway in reviewing the contents of this Note in advance of publication. Oireachtas Library & Research Service | L&RS Note Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Remote hearings – an overview ...................................................................................................... 3 ICT in Irish courts – capability and capacity .................................................................................... 4 Recent developments that facilitated the introduction of remote hearings .................................. 5 Impact and response to Covid-19 pandemic ..................................................................................
  • Running Head: JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 1

    Running Head: JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 1

    Running head: JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 1 Jury Decision Making Research: Are Researchers Focusing on the Mouse and Not the Elephant in the Room? Narina Nuñez & Sean M. McCrea Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming Scott E. Culhane Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming Preprint of Nuñez, N., McCrea, S. M. and Culhane, S. E. (2011), Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?. Behav. Sci. Law, 29: 439–451. doi: 10.1002/bsl.967 Full version JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 2 Abstract The concerns of jury research have extensively focused on subject selection, yet larger issues loom. We argue that observed differences between students vs. non-students in mock juror studies are inconsistent at best, and that researchers are ignoring the more important issue of jury deliberation. We contend that the lack of information on deliberating jurors and/or juries is a much greater threat to ecological validity and that some of our basic findings and conclusions in the literature today might be different if we had used juries, not non-deliberating jurors, as the unit of measure. Finally, we come full circle in our review and explore whether the debate about college and community samples might be more relevant to deliberating versus non-deliberating jurors. JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 3 Jury Decision Making Research: Are Researchers Focusing on the Mouse and Not the Elephant in the Room? The tension between experimental control and ecological validity is present in many applied psychological research endeavors but is probably crucial in jury decision making studies.
  • Gekekal Statutes

    Gekekal Statutes

    ' ,0~~.0 X-^t-^ GEKEKAL STATUTES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: REVISED BY. COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED UNDER AN ACT APPROVED FEBRUARY 17, 1863, AND ACTS SUBSEQUENT THERETO, AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE, AND PASSED AT THE SESSION OF 1866. TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ORGANIC ACT, THE ACT AUTHORIZING A STATE GOVERNMENT, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, ARE PREFIXED ; AND A LIST OF ACTS PREVIOUSLY REPEALED, A GLOSSARY, AND INDEX, ARE ADDED. «II»II» Edited and. Ihiblished under the authority of Chapters 15 and 16 of the Laws of 1866. «!•«••» ST. PAUL. PUBLISHED BY DAVIDSON & HALL, STATE PRINTERS, 170 THIRD STREET. 1872. MINNESOTA STATUTES 1866 114.] ISSUES AND MODE OP TRIAL. 655 c EAPTEE CXIT./^^ % ISSUES AND MODE OP TRIAL, r jC v SECTION SECTION " 1. Issue of fact arises, when. 14. What papers jury may take on retiring for 2. Shall be tried by jury. deliberation. > 3. Trial had in absence of defendant, when. 15 Jury may return into court for information 4. Continuance may be granted. concerning law or testimony. 5. Court may order defendant to bo committed. 16. Jury may be discharged, if one falls sick. 6. Separate trial in case of two or more defend- 17. Cause may be tried second time, when. ants allowed, when. 18. "What verdict jury may find in certain cases. 7. One joint defendant may be discharged to be 19. Jury may render verdict as to part of several witness for the state. defendants. 8. Defendant may be discharged to be witness for 20. Jury may be polled.
  • The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K

    The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K

    Maryland Law Review Volume 53 | Issue 1 Article 5 The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Darryl K. Brown, The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers, 53 Md. L. Rev. 107 (1994) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol53/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROLE OF RACE IN JURY IMPARTIALITY AND VENUE TRANSFERS DARRYL IL BROWN* I. INTRODUCrION A. Two Cases in Point In 1990, Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry was indicted on fourteen charges of drug possession and perjury arising from a federal investigation that yielded a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine in Washington's Vista Hotel.1 Barry and his attorney chose not to seek a change of venue for the trial, despite overwhelming pretrial public- ity about the case that included constant replays of the incriminating videotape on local television stations.2 The jury, drawn from the Dis- trict and comprised mostly of African Americans,3 convicted Barry, an African American, of only one misdemeanor possession charge-not the one arising from the videotape.4 The verdict was generally viewed as a victory for the defendant.' * Staff Attorney, University of Georgia School of Law Legal Aid Clinic.
  • SCC File No. 39062 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL for ONTARIO)

    SCC File No. 39062 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL for ONTARIO)

    SCC File No. 39062 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT (Respondent) – and – PARDEEP SINGH CHOUHAN RESPONDENT (Appellant) – and – ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES, ADVOCATES' SOCIETY, DEBBIE BAPTISTE, BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BLACK LAWYERS, CANADIAN MUSLIM LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND FEDERATION OF ASIAN CANADIAN LAWYERS, CRIMINAL LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO), DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DEFENCE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA, SOUTH ASIAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO, ASSOCIATION QUÉBÉCOISE DES AVOCATS ET AVOCATES DE LA DÉFENSE INTERVENERS FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER DEFENCE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA (Pursuant to Rule 42 the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) MICHAEL JOHNSTON JAMES COULTER SOLOMON FRIEDMAN Shore Johnston Hyslop Day | LLP James Coulter Law 200 Elgin Street (Suite 800) 200 Elgin Street (Suite 800) Ottawa, ON / K2P 1L5 Ottawa, ON / K2P 1 L5 Telephone: 1-613-233-7747 Telephone: 1-613-371-3884 Facsimile: 1-613-233-2374 Facsimile: 1-613-233-2374 E-mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Agent for the Intervener Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa i MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY NADIA EFFENDI GENERAL Crown Law Office – Criminal Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 10th Floor, 720 Bay Street World Exchange Plaza
  • Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation Jeffrey Abramson Jeffrey.Abramson@Chicagounbound.Edu

    Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation Jeffrey Abramson [email protected]

    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 1998 | Issue 1 Article 6 Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation Jeffrey Abramson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Abramson, Jeffrey () "Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1998: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1998/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Two Ideals of Jury Deliberation Jeffrey Abramsont Several recent works of political theory have put forward a model of democracy that gives deliberation, and popular participation in deliberation, a central place in resolving moral disagreements among citizens.' Rather than shunting moral disputes as irresolvable or leaving their solution to the courts, theorists of democratic deliberation have argued that disputes over fundamental moral values have a place in politics and that citizens motivated by mutual respect toward their opponents or similar constraints can reason publicly to attain justifiable conclusions. As philosophers Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson put it, the "core idea" behind deliberative democracy is simple: even "when citizens or their representatives disagree morally, they should continue to reason together to reach mutually acceptable decisions." 2 When asked to give a practical example of such deliberation, deliberative democracy theorists often cite the jury as an institution that embodies the ideal of using collective reasoned discussion to attain a common verdict.
  • Gfniral Statutes

    Gfniral Statutes

    GFNIRAL STATUTES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, IN FOROE JANUARY, 1891. VOL.2. CowwNnro ALL TEE LAw OP & GENERAJ NATURE Now IN FORCE AND NOT IN VOL. 1, THE SAME BEING TEE CODE OF Civu PROCEDURE AND ALL REME- DIAL LAW, THE PROBATE CODE, THE PENAL CODE AND THE CEnt- JRAL PROCEDURE, THE CoNSTITuTIoNS AND ORGANIc ACTS. COMPILED AND ANNOTATED BY JNO. F. KELLY, OF TUE Sr. Pui BAR. SECOND EDITION. ST. PAUL: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 1891. A MINNESOTA STATUTES 1891 IN] EX To Vols. 1 and , except as Indicated by the cross-references, to Vol. 1. A - ACCOUNTS. (cqinued)-- officers'., of corporation, altering, §6448. ABANDONMNT (see CHILD)- presentation, of fraudulent, when felony, Qf, insane person, penalty fpr, §5895, §6507. of lands condemned for public use, §1229. ABATE- ACCOUN,T BOOKS- reognizance.not to abate, when, §439. • are p'rirna.facie evidence, §51'12. action to, nuisapee, §*442 ACCUSATION- actions abated when, §4738. to remove attorneys, §4376. board of health, sa,ll, hat,nuisapces, i9, %vriting. veiifipd, '4l77. §5SS, 589.. ACCUSED- warrant to, §591. rigMsof; §6626 ABBREViATIONS- iii describing lands, §1582. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (see Index to 'Vol. ABDUCTION (see SEDUCTION; KTDNAP- of 1eeds of land, §4121. RING)-. certifipa.te of. §4122. defined, pnnishment,f,or, §6196. ii qter.sta,tes, §4.23. evidence required to cnvitof, §6197. in foreign countries. §4124. ABETTING (see AIDIN-)- iefusaI to aknplege, §4125. ABOLISHED- proceedings to eompl, §4126. dower anl curtesy is, §4001.. defective, to, cqnveyanqes legalized-. certain defects legalized, §4164. ABORTION (see INDECENT ARTICLES)- ntnslapghter in first degree, when, by officer whose ternl. has çxpired, §4165, §6H5, GUll.