Distributed by the Jury Rights Project
In a case that has frightening ramifications for Canadians, former juror Gillian Guess of North Vancouver, B.C. has been charged with Obstruction of Justice for having a "personal relationship" with a defendant (Peter Gill) during the trial on which she served as a juror. The jury returned a unanimous acquittal of six defendants in a highly publicized murder case. Guess admits that she had spoken with Peter Gill and two of the other defendants during the trial, but only briefly and not about the trial. But Guess and the other jurors were never instructed by the judge not to have contact with the defendants or other principles in the case during the trial.
Guess says she also talked to the judge during the trial when she met him at a local bank. Guess and the judge talked for 15 minutes about the trial. The judge never admonished Guess that their communication was improper or prohibited. But now the former juror faces 10 years in prison for failing to follow a no-contact order that was never given. These charges are a legal first for jurors in Canada.
Guess' trial is scheduled to begin on May 7, 1998. The Crown apparently is determined to persecute and prosecute Guess to its fullest powers. The Crown engaged in extensive and unprecedented surveillance of Guess after the trial. They bugged her bedroom and plan to play audio tapes at Guess' trial of her and ex-defendant Peter Gill engaging in sexual intercourse at some point after the trial. The prosecution has already called in several sheriffs to testify at Guess' preliminary hearing about the length of her skirts and the make-up she wore during the trial! The Crown claims to have over 18,000 conversations recorded of Guess, her family and her friends after the trial was over, none of which show Guess deliberated or acted improperly when she served on the jury or was involved in any other criminal activity. The prosecution has subpoenaed Guess' mother and 12 year old daughter to testify for the prosecution at Guess' trial. Is this the administration of justice or another witch hunt against an outspoken female juror?
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Guess was a juror in the high-profile Dosanjh brothers murder trial (Regina v. Johal et al). It was the longest and most expensive criminal trial in Canadian history. The case was of six ethnic defendants who were charged with the first degree murders of two brothers in 1994. Police say the murders were the result of an ongoing feud between two rival groups of drug dealers.
The murders had received a lot of publicity and had set off a gang war in the Vancouver area. After a year of investigation of the murder, the police had still not made any arrests. The public became outraged and demanded justice. Arrests were finally made. The police and the Crown desperately wanted a conviction to put an end to the gang warfare and the negative publicity the case had generated.
Guess' ordeal began in January 1995 when she was selected to serve on the jury in this highly-publicized trial. Guess is a 42-year-old single mother of two who was pursuing a masters' degree prior to the onset of the trial. Guess was forced to put her life on hold for nine months and take a weekend job as a police counselor for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to support her family. For the first three months of the case, Guess and the other jurors were forced to wait on hold at home each day, waiting for a call from the court that pre-trial arguments had ended. It wasn't until April 1995 that the first evidence was finally presented to the jurors. During the trial, the prosecution twice tried to have Guess removed from the jury: once for improper eye contact with one of the defendants (Peter Gill) and once for an alleged conversation she had with one of the attorneys involved in the case. In both instances, the judge ruled that Guess should remain on the jury and did not advise Guess or any of the other jurors that Guess' behavior had been questioned.
Finally in October 1995, after three months of waiting through pre-trial arguments and six months of listening to evidence, the jurors began their deliberations. They were sequestered and deliberated for seven days and seven nights. The twelve-member jury voted UNANIMOUSLY TO ACQUIT all the defendants on all of the charges.
The Crown was furious. They had expended a lot of time and money into getting a conviction. The Crown and police widely criticized the jury's verdict. Guess was interviewed by a local television station. Guess defended the jury's verdict and criticized the weak case that the prosecution had presented. (Guess could not discuss the specifics of jury room deliberations, as this is prohibited under Canadian law.) She said the Crown should never have brought the case against the defendants based on such flimsy evidence. She strongly criticized the government for persecuting innocent people.
Now the Crown had a target for their fury, and the witch hunt began. They already had a suspicion that Guess had engaged in "improper eye contact" with ex-defendant Peter Gill. They soon discovered that Guess and Gill had met about a week after the trial was over and began to date.
In December 1995, Guess was arrested for questioning (ironically, by one of her former fellow employees from the RCMP). She admitted to the police she had been in an intimate relationship with Gill that began after the end of the trial. She was released after several hours of interrogation.
The Crown then launched a full-scale investigation of Guess. The Crown tapped her phone; they tapped the phones of her friends and family; they even put a hidden recording device in her BEDROOM. They harrassed and investigated her family and friends and tried to terrorize and intimidate Guess.
After a three-month investigation, Guess was arrested and charged with Obstruction of Justice on May 13, 1996 (ironically, the same day another juror, Laura Kriho, was seated to serve on the jury in Colorado which lead to her malicious prosecution.)
Guess is being accused of obstructing justice for having a "personal relationship" with Peter Gill during the trial. Her actions after the unanimous verdict was returned are not a basis for the charges against her. (Guess has since ended her relationship with Gill.)
GUESS' FIRST HEARING
Guess had a preliminary hearing in April 1997. The Crown presented no evidence that Guess had deliberated improperly with regards to the defendant Peter Gill. However, the newspapers the next day reported the unsupported allegation of the prosecution that Guess had "proclaimed her ex-lover's innocence" throughout deliberations, but the media failed to mention that none of Guess' fellow jurors supported this claim.
The court transcripts clearly show that no instruction was ever given to the jurors not to talk to the defendants, the attorneys, or the judge. The jurors were also not instructed to avoid reading media coverage of the case. The jurors assumed that these instructions were not given due to the length of the trial and the high publicity of the case.
The Crown asserts that Guess should have known that she was not to have contact with the principles of the case, even though the jurors were not given that instruction and even though the presiding judge unreservedly had a conversation with Guess about the trial, during the trial.
THE SECRET HEARINGS
Currently, preliminary arguments to determine the legality of the wiretaps are underway. In another strange and frightening twist, the judge has ruled these evidence hearings are to be kept secret from Guess and has banned her from the courtroom. Guess has been given no explanation as to why these hearings are to be kept secret from her. Secret proceedings of this type are unprecedented in the Canadian legal system. Guess' attorney been forced to retain his own counsel to advise him on what he is and is not allowed to disclose to his client about these secret hearings.
If the wiretaps are allowed as evidence, this will set a new legal precedent that will allow the police to bug the facilities of any juror based on anonymous and unsubstantiated tips.
GUESS' TRIAL
Guess' jury trial scheduled to begin on May 7, 1998. She faces 10 years in prison.
The Jury Rights Project is committed to protecting the right of jurors to serve without fear of later prosecution. The jury has been called the last line of non-violent defense between citizens and a tyrannical government. Historically, persecutions of jurors often leads to revolutions (that was one of the reasons the U.S. declared independence from Britain).
The Jury Rights Project was formed in 1996 around the case of Laura Kriho, a former juror who was convicted of contempt of court in Colorado last year, in part for failing to volunteer her prior knowledge of a juror's right to acquit a defendant if they believe the law is unjust (jury nullification), even though the court never asked her any questions about her political knowledge or beliefs. The Kriho case was the first case of its type in the U.S. Now it appears Canada has its own example of juror prosecution.
Prosecution of jurors should be avoided at all costs. It causes citizens to lose respect for the government and makes them fearful towards future jury duty. Jurors should be respected and honored, not threatened and intimidated. Jurors perform the last mandatory civic responsibility, and they should be highly regarded for their service to the country. Jurors should be treated like judges, presidents, or kings. The remedy for alleged juror misconduct should be removal from the jury or declaration of a mistrial, not prosecution of the juror.
Twice during the murder trial, the Crown asked the court to remove Gillian from the jury. The court refused and allowed Gillian to serve. If there was any evidence to support the Crown's claims, an immediate investigation should have been undertaken and the trial put on hold. At least, Gillian should have been informed that her "eye contact" was "improper." Gillian cannot be held responsible for mistakes made by the court during the trial. A post-trial investigation of a juror sends the message to other jurors that if you have "improper eye contact" with a defendant during a trial that you can be investigated and prosecuted later without warning. Even if Guess did have a personal relationship with the defendant during the trial, there was adequate opportunity to remedy this during the trial by removing Guess from the jury.
In addition, Gillian was never given a no-contact order by the Court. Gillian is being prosecuted for failing to follow an order that was never given (similar to the Kriho case in which Kriho was prosecuted for not answering questions that were never asked). Jurors can't be held responsible for reading the mind of the court. If the courts want orders to be followed and questions to be answered, they had better start giving the orders and asking the questions.
Guess is charged with violating her oath to render a true verdict according to the evidence by obstructing the course of justice by having a personal relationship with the defendant. How could one juror possibly obstruct the course of justice when the verdict was a unanimous acquittal for all defendants on all the charges?
The charge of Obstruction of Justice in Canada has always been interpreted to mean bribery, threats, or coercion of some sort. The crime has never been used to prosecute someone for a "personal relationship." What is a "personal relationship" anyway? Is it "intimate" or could it include "improper eye contact" or even "improper thoughts"? Will "personal relationship" include the relationship she had with the judge, the attorneys, and the other defendants she spoke with during the trial? The prosecutor surely intends to clarify this at Guess' trial.
Gillian is clearly being used as a scapegoat for an angry and vengeful Crown. Even the most heinous criminals often don't receive the special police treatment Gillian has experienced:
This is reminiscent of a medieval witch hunt, not a modern-day quest for justice.
1) FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT: Gillian is being represented by attorney Peter Ritchie. Fortunately, Mr. Ritchie's fees are being paid by legal aid since Guess' currently only makes about $800/month on which she has to support two children.
Gillian has been devastated financially and emotionally by her service on the jury and her prosecution for that service. She has lost the support of many of her friends because of their intimidation by law enforcement. She is scared and confused, but still remains committed to fighting for the truth. She never would have been prosecuted if she had voted to convict. She doesn't feel she did anything wrong and is determined to prevail over her malicious prosecution.
She'd appreciate any kind note of support you can send her or any financial assistance you could give her. In addition to taking care of her children, she has the extra burden of transportation and parking costs related to her frequent court appearances. Any support you give will be greatly appreciated.
Donations can be made to Gillian in care of her attorney:
Gillian Guess Legal Support Fund
C/o Peter C. Ritchie, Esq.
1300-355 Burrard St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2G6 Canada
Phone: (604) 684-0778
Fax: (604) 684-0799
Letters of support can be sent to Gillian on email:
Her mailing address is:
Gillian Guess
135-1300 Parkgate Ave. North
Vancouver, B.C. V7H 2Y2
Phone: 1 (604) 929-3625
2) LETTERS TO THE LOCAL MEDIA: Send a short letter to the local media and let them know there is international outrage about this case. Throughout history, prosecution and persecution of jurors has lead to the start of revolutions.
Canadian media are often banned from publicizing an upcoming jury trial. The judge in Guess' preliminary hearing has imposed a media ban on coverage of Guess' trial. The local newspapers may not be allowed to print your letters about the Guess case, but it is important to them to know that many people care about the preservation of a juror's right to serve without fear of later prosecution.
Use this email list to cut and paste into the Blind Carbon Copy (Bcc) field of your email program. Send the mail to yourself as the primary recipient. The Bcc function allows you to send a letter to many recipients, but they don't all see who else gets the letter. The Canadian Bcc list includes the British Columbia Premier--Glen Clark--as well as Gillian Guess and the Jury Rights Project. More contact information for the press follows the Bcc list.
Canadian Bcc email list: lsmith@pacpress.southam.ca, sjiwa@pacpress.southam.ca, jdrabble@pacpress.southam.ca, sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca, voices@pacpress.southam.ca, editor@nsnews.com, timesc@interlink.bc.ca, tor_news@sunpub.com, webmaster@thestar.com, letters@chatelaine.com, premier@gov.bc.ca, jrights@levellers.org, gillian_guess@bc.sympatico.ca
The Vancouver Province Fax: 1 (604) 605-2308
E-Mail: City Editor: lsmith@pacpress.southam.ca Reporter: Salim Jiwa: sjiwa@pacpress.southam.ca
The Vancouver Sun Editor: jdrabble@pacpress.southam.ca Letters: sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca
Voices: voices@pacpress.southam.ca
North Shore News: editor@nsnews.com
The Times Colonist (Victoria): timesc@interlink.bc.ca
The Toronto Sun: tor_news@sunpub.com
The Toronto Star: webmaster@thestar.com
Chatelaine Magazine: letters@chatelaine.com
3) LETTERS TO THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT: We are encouraging people to send letters to the prosecutor in the Guess case. Be respectful, but encourage him to end his malicious persecution of Gillian. The jury system will be irreparably damaged if jurors are allowed to be prosecuted for violating orders that were never given.
Send letters to:
Joseph C. Bellows (prosecutor)
Counsel for the Crown
Crown Counsel Office
865 Hornby St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2G3
Fax: 1 (604) 660-1103
Send copies to:
Attorney General of British Columbia, Ujjal
Dosanjh
Fax: 1 (250) 387-6411
Vancouver Crown Counsel Fax: 1 (250) 660-4347
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Hon. Mr. Justice R. M. P. Paris (judge in Guess case)
800 Smythe St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2G3
Fax: 1 (604) 660-1723
The French phrase "voir dire" literally means "to speak; to see". In Canada's legal system, "voir dire" means a pre-trial hearing on evidence. In the U.S., "voir dire" means the jury interrogation and selection process.
U.S. jurors are subjected to extensive interrogation into their experiences and beliefs (voir dire) during jury selection. Jurors in Canada are not asked any questions and are truly randomly selected from the jury pool.
Canadian jurors are not legally allowed to discuss the content of their deliberations. Therefore, Guess cannot defend herself to the public if she can't talk about the basis for the jury's deliberations.
Canadian jurisprudence contains no protection from double jeopardy (i.e., the Crown can re-try a case if it doesn't agree with an acquittal). In the U.S., an acquittal by a jury is final and unreviewable. That is why the doctrine of jury nullification works in the U.S. but not in Canada.
Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!
Contact Us:
Jury Rights Project