tomhudson's Journal: [jury duty] verdict: guilty of 2nd degree murder

warning: disturbing stuff follows ...

After 4 weeks of hearing evidence, testimony, arguments, and instructions from the judge, we deliberated for 2 days (Thursday and Friday) and returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of 2nd degree murder.

I can't tell you how we reached our decision - the law states that in Canada, jury deliberations are secret - not even the judge can know the details about them. The public details of the trial itself are as follows:

• On Friday, December 3rd 2004, the accused killed her husband's twin brother's pregnant wife. She then called her father-in-law, who was helping out at the local temple several blocks away, saying that a robber had broken in, had hurt her, and was attacking her sister-in-law.
• The murderer was 21 years old at the time she killed her 22-year-old sister-in-law. She had arrived in Canada from Sri Lanka 4 months before the crime, after an arranged marriage in Sri Lanka; the dead woman had arrived in Canada the year before, also after an arranged marriage in Sri Lanka.
• The trial was conducted in both french and english - hence the need for a bilingual jury. Translators were provided for several witnesses whose mother tongue was tamil. No translation was done between english and french, as the judge, prosecutor, defense team, clerk, and all the jury spoke both languages.
• We heard evidence from almost 2 dozen witnesses, including police officers, the doctor who treated the victim at the scene, a cell-phone forensic investigator, a forensic pathologist who testified as to dna and blood spatter analysis, the nature of each wound, etc., a criminal biologist, the mother, father, both sons, the younger sister, the accused, and others.
• An examination of the body showed that the victim sustained 45 knife wounds, including two knife slashes across the throat, perforating both her jugular vein and carotid artery, as well as wounds to the skull, face, chest (which collapsed one lung, and caused internal bleeding), upper back, and defensive wounds on the arms and hands. The pathologist stated that the internal organs were very pale, because of the large quantity of blood the victim lost. However, he wasn't able to say if she died quickly or slowly (the jugular and carotid were punctured, not sliced, so bleeding could have been slower, and the body may have constricted blood vessels feeding the extremities to conserve blood). She may have died in a few minutes, or it may have taken over an hour.
• Physical evidence, which went with us during deliberations so that we could handle it (after taking precautions not to contaminate it with our own dna or to come into contact with any hazardous chemicals that might be present) included the murder weapon (a kitchen butcher knife), blood-stained garments, store receipts, etc.
• During the course of the trial we were given copies of over two hundred photos, photocopies of cell phone records, blood sample collection and dna analysis reports, the pathologists' reports and sketches, police sketches of the crime scene, etc. Our copies, which each of us was free to mark up in any way we want, along with our individual notes, will be shredded.
• After we reached our verdict, the judge thanked us for our patience and hard work, and explained that we now had a further duty. The criminal code imposes a life penalty (25 years) for second-degree murder; the judge can set a minimum period of time before the person can apply for parole. This minimum time is anywhere from 10 to 25 years of time served. The jury has the duty to decide if they want to make a non-binding recommendation as to the minimum time served before parole. We declined to make a recommendation, leaving parole eligibility entirely to the judges' discretion.

Its going to be strange going to work Monday morning, rather than to the courthouse. I really feel for everyone involved ... both sons lost their wives, and the whole family had to relive this two years later in front of strangers.

uhh wow

[nizo]

Its like TV, only real!

Wow that must have been pretty intense. At least you can get back to normal, more or less :-)

p.s. Doing the multiply thang? (or are you already there and I forgot already?)

Re:

[tomhudson]

It was certainly interesting. While parts were disturbing, I'd be willing to do jury duty again - as the judge pointed out in her remarks to all the candidates during the selection process, many people find jury duty to ultimately be a rewarding experience; I feel more than ever that the "throw 12 people into a box and give them the opportunity to decide on the facts" is a valid process.

As for multiply, I hopped over their a few minutes ago, and I'm wary about the "derivative works" part of their licens

Re:

[nizo]

I would assume the lawyerese is so that advertisers (like google ads) can show ads based on what is posted (obviously the google ads are based on keywords in the posts for example). Though one could argue that posting stuff into the circle group isn't public (since you can make the setting such that only members of the group can see your posts for example). Or if any one single person can read a post, is it now considered public? Hmm....

Re:

[tomhudson]

The problem isn't that they can just share it ... you give them a right to modify it - and that right is passed on. So if you come up with, say, a really good logo, their affiliates can use a modified version without any attribution to you, etc.

It would be nice if they would clarify what they meant. For example, if its only for reformatting (for example, resizing a graphic or changing the size of text), or so that caching services (akamai) could hold a local copy, I wouldn't see a problem.

However, tha

Hope

[Talinom]

I hope that the families can continue on with their lives. I hope that these wounds can heal. I hope the defendent knows and acknowledges the seriousness of the crime and that they committed it.

I also hope that you can pick up where you left off only taking the positive parts from this experience you have had.

Re:

[tomhudson]

The family moved to a different street (for obvious reasons, they didn't want to stay where they were), and then they moved 700 km to a different province, where their oldest daughter had already been living for years.

As for the killer, the two years she has spent in detention while awaiting trial counts towards the 10-year minimum before she's eligible for parole. That's one of the rationales behind the "early parole" system - giving people an incentive to own up to what they've done and try to rehabili

Wow

[IamBMETammy]

So why do they think she did it?

Re:

[tomhudson]

Unlike the American system, Canadian jurors swear under oath not to discuss their deliberations with anyone outside the jury - to do so is a criminal offense punishable by 2 years in jail.

The only exceptions are for investigations into jury tampering, and up to 5 hours - and only IF the judge so orders - with a psychologist.

In other words, jurors can't even discuss the reasons behind why the jury voted the way they did with a spouse, priest/pastor/rabbi, doctor, or anyone else.

This is actually a good

Re:

[IamBMETammy]

Oh, so how extensive is that? You can discuss the case in general, but not details of the trial? Or does it just cover things said during your deliberations?

It's a good idea, and our judicial system could use something like that.

Re:

[tomhudson]

Its covered under Section 649 of the Canadian Criminal Code [canlii.org]

Criminal Code

PART XX: PROCEDURE IN JURY TRIALS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Trial

Disclosure of jury proceedings

649. Every member of a jury, and every person providing technical, personal, interpretative or other support services to a juror with a physical disability, who, except for the purposes of

(a) an investigation of an alleged offence under subsection 139(2) in relation to a juror, or

(b) giving evidence in cr

Re:

[plover]

Again, thank you for serving. I imagine it's especially hard when it's a disturbing crime such as this; so even though it's not showing us humans at our best, it's needed, and I thank you for doing it.

Off to something more frivolous.

No evidence can be heard without both the defendant, their lawyers, the crown, the judge AND the jury.

OK, you just used the words "the crown." Exactly what is Canada's current relationship with the royals? As far as I know you still have their pictures on your money, an

Re:

[tomhudson]

"The Crown" refers, in this case, to the prosecutors' office. Canada, as a sovereign country, with our own Constitution, is independant of Great Britain. Nevertheless, we still use (some of) the old terms.

I'm looking at a notice in the case (in french) and it says "LA REINE" - literally, "THE QUEEN", so yes, some traditions persist.

One interesting tradition is how, when the bailiff says "All Rise", he means everyone EXCEPT THE JURY. The first morning, we all tried to stand up quickly, and someone dropp

Re:

[Iamthefallen]

Responding to this comment so you'll both see it

If I understand you correctly, you're free to share what evidence the prosecutor and defense presented, you're just not allowed to share what was said regarding the evidence while in deliberation?

So let me restate the question to offer a way to respond, again, this would've been part of the public trial:

What did the prosecutor suggest was the motive behind it?

Re:

[tomhudson]

You're right - anyone can talk about what is known to the general public - what was said in open court. Its only the deliberations that are secret.

As to motive, the instructions from the judge were clear - motive isn't a necessary requirement for a conviction on either murder or culpable homicide. Of course, the jurors, as the determiners of the facts, are free to give any motive presented whatever credibility or weight they wish to ascribe to it. The lack of a motive as part of either the prosecutors'

Holy shit!

[BandwidthHog]

Are YOU okay?

Re:

[tomhudson]

I'm doing okay. It's going to take a few days to "decompress" and get back into my old routine ... and I'll miss my "new" routine of going to court every morning to meet my fellow jurors. 4 weeks of working with the same people under such different conditions, and not being allowed to discuss the details of the case until we started deliberation, we ended up talking a lot about all sorts of other things, so we all became friends ... to the point that 11 of us exchanged email addresses and we're going to