Sent to Canadian Media June 25, 1998
I am baffled by the conviction of Gillian Guess for obstruction of justice. Even if she did have a relationship with one of the defendants during the trial, wasn't it the judge's duty to remove her from the jury? It is my understanding that there were two times during the trial that the Crown asked the judge to remove Ms. Guess from the jury, yet the judge let her continue to serve. Why wasn't the judge impeached for obstructing justice for making such an egregious mistake?
I still do not understand how one juror can "obstruct justice" when the jury returned a unanimous verdict of acquittal. If we believe that the other jurors were responsible for their votes, why aren't they being prosecuted as well? Did the jurors in the Guess trial really believe she persuaded all 11 Dosanjh jurors to vote for acquittal? Having been through the deliberation process themselves, they would have seen first hand how impossible that would be for any juror. Most likely, the jurors in the Guess trial were misled by the instructions from the judge on how to reach a verdict. In my opinion, having a personal relationship with a defendant during the trial is pretty stupid, but if it didn't affect the outcome of the trial, then where is the obstruction? The Crown has twisted our common sense understanding of the law and justice in order to punish one woman for felonious stupidity. Is society better for this?
It is clear the Crown is more interested in vengeance than it is protecting the jury system and ensuring all defendants a fair, impartial, and unafraid jury. Prosecution of jurors should only be undertaken if it is the only way to ensure justice. There are remedies for alleged juror misconduct that could have been taken by the court at the time, instead of prosecuting Ms. Guess three years later. The court could have reprimanded her for her alleged "improper" conduct or the court could have dismissed her from the jury. After the verdict, the court could have declared a mistrial and perhaps granted the Crown another opportunity to convict the defendants.
The prosecution of jurors will destroy the justice system by violating the secrecy and sanctity of jury room deliberations and causing citizens to be fearful to serve on a jury. Jurors will be afraid to speak or act freely should any eye contact or thoughts be found to be "improper" after their service has ended. Jurors will be reluctant to deliberate freely when they know there is a chance that they will have to testify about their deliberations in court, as Ms. Guess' fellow jurors have had to do. No defendant can expect to have a fair trial when the jurors are afraid to deliberate freely.
I ask that the citizens of B.C. have sympathy for Ms. Guess. If they are angry about the verdict in the Dosanjh brothers murder trial, take that anger out on the Crown and the judge, not on Ms. Guess. The jury has been called the last line of non-violent defense against a tyrannical and oppressive government. To preserve that vital role is far more important than the punishment of one woman.
Laura Kriho
Nederland, CO
lkriho@levellers.org
Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!
ContactUs:
Jury Rights Project