Jury Duty Twice, got out of it
- Thread starter unassuming
- Start date
But if someone does have a credible alibi, it seems illogical to not enter it into evidence even if he is not obligated to. If he can prove that he was not there at the time of the murder, then there is no way we could have convicted.
As far as circumstantial evidence we were given an example: I lay down to have a nap and there had been no precipitation, the ground was dry. When I wake up an hour or so later and the ground is soaked, the obvious conclusion is that it rained. I didn't observe the rain but the wet ground is excellent circumstantial evidence. Sure, there may be some Bizarro set of occurrences, but any rational person would conclude that it was rain.
There was other damning evidence that pointed at the defendant. They had set up a sting operation where a cop befriended the defendant who revealed some information which was used against him. There were footprints that matched shoes he owned. TBH, the case was pre-covid so time fades memories. But, trust me, there was a pre-ponderous amount of circumstantial evidence that, when looked at as a whole, could fit only the defendant.
It was interesting but the most important concern was that golf season was just starting and I was stressed out that I'd be missing some rounds after waiting all winter. Fortunately, the trial only lasted about 2 weeks and the weather was shit.
So we can say that justice was served all around.
This is a long-ass YouTube video, but it's one I enjoy watching from time to time. In many jurisdictions, a person charged with a crime cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Law Professor James Duane proudly asserts that he would never tell a client to talk to the police, and that he himself would never talk to the police. Even if the information you give to the police is beneficial to you, such as an alibi - don't talk to the police. Perhaps @onomatopoeia has watched this one.
21:00 to 24:00 is the relevant section to this conversation.
Last edited:
I understand not talking to the police but if you have a solid alibi, it is the first thing defence counsel is going to use. It doesn’t have to be given at the time of questioning or arrest but it would be given at some point in time.
Can convict you of being in place A if you have an alibi of being in place B. Logic dictates it would have been brought into evidence at some point in time.
Last edited:
I watched only the three minute segment relevant to this quote.
Part of the problem with speaking to the police is that some police officers don't understand what they are supposed to be doing, or they ignore their responsibilities if following a different course of action will benefit them personally.
I have first-hand knowledge of a police offer who took this approach, and all of the other officers involved in the case either directly assisted him, or assisted him by neglecting to do their jobs properly or completely.
In 2007, I was falsely accused of assault, by someone who assaulted me. The officer who arrested me, at some point, asked the complainant 'if he wanted to press charges'. This was his first mistake; complainants don't press charges; a detective does.
When the complainant said 'Yes', the arresting officer 'took the case' for him, meaning that he only asked questions of the complainant that would assist in making an arrest, and he didn't question the complainant further when some of his statements contradicted other things he said.
When I spoke to the arresting officer, he omitted from his notes 'everything that he didn't want to remember'. For example, I told him that the complainant had struck me, and broken my glasses. I was wearing the broken glasses when I spoke to him. His partner's notes mentioned that I had said that the complainant struck me, but he didn't mention the broken glasses. The arresting officer made no mention of my having said that I had been struck, and made no mention of the broken glasses.
Some police officers think that they are like 'dog catchers', processing requests for arrest when a 911 call is assigned to them. They interpret the excerpt from an arrested person's rights "...everything you say can and will be used against you..." As meaning that they should only write down the portion of an accused's statements that can be used against them. What the accused says which is of benefit to them, (and evidence to support that), might be omitted from notes, because that information/ evidence does not help in making the arrest, nor having the accused charged.
Part of the Oath a police officer takes before receiving their badge is:
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to His Majesty the King and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
I was looking for the portion where the officer affirms that they will 'give the benefit of the doubt to the accused' This was part of the oath that I printed in 2008, but I couldn't find it online today.
Police constables are not supposed to take sides in a dispute, and they are not supposed to decide whether or not an accused is guilty; those are other people's job responsibilities. A complainant is not 'their client', as if they were a civil litigator.
What some constables don't seem to understand is that an Oath is more than just a promise; it is a promise which is legally binding.
Speaking to the police is a bad idea, because there is no way in advance to know whether or not they will take note of everything you say, or only the subsection that they hope to use against you.
Defense lawyers don't testify in Court.
As mentioned previously, an accused/ defendant has no obligation to try to prove that they are not guilty. The burden of proof is placed 100% on the prosecution. Choosing to exercise one's right to remain silent or requesting legal assistance following an arrest are not evidence of guilt, despite what some cops might think.
I was thinking of casting Wallace Michael Shawn, who played The Grand Nagus on Star Trek DS9!
Not what I was trying to say.
If the defendant had gone to a different apartment, and told his defense lawyer about it, the lawyer (or someone else qualified) could then speak whomever the defendant visited that night and if the lawyer felt his evidence sounded credible, the lawyer could put this person on the stand to testify and give first hand knowledge that the defendant could not have been at the scene of the crime.
If you watch the whole thing, the Professor yields half his time to a Detective to give a rebuttal; the Detective agrees with everything he says. The Detective is looking to make the Prosecutor's job easy by extracting a confession.
The only thing the Detective refutes is that he doesn't intentionally try to put innocent people in jail; perhaps this Detective has a higher professional standard than the police officer you dealt with.
It benefits the police department and individual officers for a detective to charge someone whom he knows is not guilty, but a conviction would not result in jail time.
There are four possible outcomes of an arraignment:
1) The accused is guilty, and pleads guilty.
2) The accused is guilty, and pleads not guilty.
3) The accused is not guilty, and pleads guilty.
4) The accused is not guilty, and pleads not guilty.
In 1), there is a conviction, and the job goes straight to the sentencing Judge. No police officers have to appear at court -> No overtime pay for court appearance(s) is applicable.
2) The case goes to trial, eventually.
3) This accused has some mental illness or defect. Perhaps he should be in a confined environment, but not a jail.
4) This scenario guarantees a court appearance for the arresting officer, (and 8 hours overtime pay at time and a half), whether or not they are required to testify. This also applies to the detective, but the detective's presence in Court might not be mandatory.
In my case, I overheard the detective saying that he had scheduled one of his vacation days for the same day as my trial, so he received considerably more than 12 additional hours of pay that week.
Benefits to the arresting officer: In this case, he was a 4th class constable, and the only overtime he would ever likely get is from court appearances, being low on the seniority list. In addition, the gross number of arrests he makes which lead to charges being filed, (whether or not those charges lead to convictions), is a positive towards promotion.
Benefits for the detective/ police department: The police obtain mug shot photographs and fingerprints, which could possibly be used to help solve some unrelated open case(s). If the accused is not acquitted, and if the the accused does not apply to the RCMP to have the mug shots and fingerprints destroyed, the police department can keep them forever. That also applies if charges are dropped, before or during the trial. Someone charged with an offense increases reported crime statistics by one. More crime means more cops. Filling the Court docket means longer delays between when someone is charged and when a verdict is delivered. This means some accused who will ultimately be acquitted may spend more time in pretrial custody, while they wait for a Court date, or habitual criminals released with or without bail have more time to re-offend before their initial trial date, also increasing arrest statistics.
In my case, before the trial, the Crown said to me "Looks like we have enough to convict...", and offered me the opportunity to change my entered plea to guilty. Half way through my cross examination of the first witness, he offered to drop the charges. I declined both.
I was representing myself because I didn't qualify for a Court appointed lawyer at trial - this was because the detective did not request jail time if I was convicted, (I would have had to provide a DNA sample). When I phoned Legal Aid, they told me "we aren't taking any new criminal cases right now", so my only assistance was from the Duty Counsel inside the Courthouse, who weren't a lot of help.
I won acquittal without having to present my defense case. That wasn't very difficult, since there was literally NO EVIDENCE in the evidence disclosure that I had committed a crime, but there was plenty that the police officers had. A Justice of the Peace signed subpoenas for three police officers to attend my trial, (these did not include the arresting officer and the detective), but I never had the opportunity to question them, because I never had the chance to present my defense case.
This:
is an actual police photograph from the evidence disclosure for my case. The complainant told police that I had ripped his shirt with my hands. Notwithstanding the fact that he had been wearing a different shirt, anybody can plainly see that that a triangular section of this shirt has been removed, by cutting the shirt with scissors! The police photographer submitted the photo, but made no mention of the fact that the shirt had been cut with scissors.
The complainant was asked by the arresting officer "What was the suspect wearing?" His reply was "Plaid pants, no shirt". This is one of the other photos from the disclosure:
It went completely over the arresting officer's head that this was, in fact a confession that he himself had committed the assault.
I should also mention that the complainant has severe schizophrenia, and is borderline mentally challenged. I would estimate his IQ at around 70, plus or minus 5, with a 'mental age of around 10-12. He most likely attended school to about grade 6 or 7, which would have been challenging to him, mentally.
There are plenty of other police gaffes, but I won't make this post any longer.
I'll say it one more time: the defendant has no obligation to provide any evidence in Court to prove that he's not guilty. Suppose that his purpose in the building was to commit some crime, but not the one of which he was accused. As Bob Dylan might put it:
"I didn't do it", he says and he throws up his hands
"I was only robbing the register. I hope you understand"
Or the other example I cited: perhaps he was banging some other guy's woman.
I know little about the case on which you were a Juror, but from what you've said about it, I would not necessarily have been convinced to vote guilty. More than circumstantial evidence should be required for a murder conviction.
You wanted the acquittal to ensure your mug shots and fingerprints were destroyed; and I assume you followed up to ensure that was actually done.
I’ve gotten a few notices over the years and I’ve always gotten out of it.
Maybe you need to describe it better then. The only person that the defendant talks to is his lawyer and that's in private. He gives the lawyer the details of the alibi in private. The lawyer then takes if from there. Not sure what the problem is.
