The Manitoba Provincial Politics Discussion

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

A criminal trial is a very complicated affair... all that I can say is that it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and complain that the trial didn't produce the desired result. I think the jury deserves the benefit of the doubt on reaching what is most certainly a defensible finding after a painstaking process.

Besides, if there was some sort of overarching error, then the Crown will be raising it on appeal.

I agree that the verdict should be respected. As a lawyer what is your opinion on the jury selection process? Can peremptory challenges be made on the basis of race? I believe that is something the Americans have changed in the last decade or so. Not sure if that was because of the Supreme Court weighing in or not.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

sometimes it is reasonable to assess the impact or current rules and make appropriate changes. I think that is the discussion that is taking place now and I think that is healthy. maybe the status quo will be maintained, maybe not.

Yeah, I can agree with that. From what I've heard so far I feel like the system doesn't appear to be broken and having veto's seem completely reasonable since they are subject to questioning and need to have a reason behind it. In this case if any aboriginal people were refused to be jurors it had to be for reasons other than just race, as that would not have been a proper reason for vetoing someone.

It appears to me that if the acquittal was correct and the reason for vetoing is legitimate then there isn't really problem with how things were handled.

[drew]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

The general consensus seems to be that he should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

Regardless of what others may say about having a firearm in the vehicle, past criminal record, what their blood alcohol level was, none of that is relevant. The firearm wasn't found until after RCMP arrived, and it wasn't even able to be fired ( as it was used to try and open another vehicle). So I'm not sure where rrskyler is getting his information from, but nothing i have seen indicated that there wire shots fired at that location by anyone than than Stanley.

What's on trial are Stanley's action. According to him he went to his shed, retrieved and loaded his pistol, fired three shots in the air ( of which only two fired - one was supposedly a hang fire). Some of the youths fled at this point, others tried to move the vehicle. Stanley then removed the magazine, did an unload, approached the vehicle, pointed the pistol at Boushie's head and then the hang fire completed.

That's his story. Even if the Jury believed his story, that's still manslaughter. What the non guilty verdict means is that the they heard Stanley's story, and said "The accidental hang fire doesn't matter. Someone tried to steal your property and now they are attempting to flee. You are justified in walking up to him and shooting him in the head at point blank range."

The jury's verdict says it doesn't matter if it was an accident or if Stanley did it with intent.

I was following the live-reporting of the trial pretty closely.

I would say that I was quite surprised that the jury didn't find him guilty of manslaughter. I posted in the Canada section that I felt the Crown made a mistake in charging him with 2nd degree murder, as that was obviously not a provable charge, especially given the witness statements. It's possible that the Crown aggressively trying to prove that Stanley intended on murdering someone may have "clouded" the judgement of the jurors to even properly consider manslaughter.


Incidentally, I have also been following the Tina Fontaine trial regularly. In that one, the case against the accused seems REALLY weak thus far. I would not be surprised to see him acquitted outright.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by drew

Incidentally, I have also been following the Tina Fontaine trial regularly. In that one, the case against the accused seems REALLY weak thus far. I would not be surprised to see him acquitted outright.

If that were to happen I think we would have a very scary situation in this city.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

I agree that the verdict should be respected. As a lawyer what is your opinion on the jury selection process? Can peremptory challenges be made on the basis of race? I believe that is something the Americans have changed in the last decade or so. Not sure if that was because of the Supreme Court weighing in or not.

Full disclosure: I have never touched a criminal law file in my life, so I am approaching this only as an interested layman. But from my hazy and distant law school memories, I recall that a jury is supposed to be composed of a collection of one's peers -- I forget the term of art that is used to describe that -- and that the concept doesn't extend to specific ethnic makeup.

A cursory search shows that the subject does seem to come up from time to time. This 2014 case from Saskatchewan suggests that while there is no requirement for a criminal trial of an Indigenous person to include a jury specifically reflective of the population, the court did make it clear that a better job could be done when it comes to improving Indigenous representation on juries in general even though doing that presents some major logistical challenges, which the judge outlines towards the end of the decision:

http://canlii.ca/t/g68f7

[Authentic_City]

The issue of jury representativeness is usually thought to apply to the accused. In other words, an accused person should be tried by a jury of his/her peers. In this case, the accused was tried by a jury of his peers. I do think the jury got it wrong by not convicting of manslaughter because it's pretty clear that Stanley was careless with the firearm (didn't know how many bullets, didn't know how to safely unload his firearm, etc.). But the jury representativeness issue is a non starter for an appeal. There is a recent Supreme Court decision on this matter, and basically it says it doesn't matter what the ultimate composition of the jury is, as long as the jury roll contained a reasonable cross section of people living in a community.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...15373/index.do

[Tacheguy]

Thanks for the informed replies. A tough issue. I just think that controversial decisions are going to have wider acceptance if the jury is seen to be at least somewhat representative. Harder to play the race card that way.

[drew]

Originally Posted by dmacc

If that were to happen I think we would have a very scary situation in this city.

Possibly.

But should we start asking ourselves if public or even political pressure is such that some of these higher profile cases are going to trial with less than ideal prospects for success (in terms of the proving guilt)?

If this is the case, it isn't doing anyone any favours.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

The issue of jury representativeness is usually thought to apply to the accused. In other words, an accused person should be tried by a jury of his/her peers. In this case, the accused was tried by a jury of his peers. I do think the jury got it wrong by not convicting of manslaughter because it's pretty clear that Stanley was careless with the firearm (didn't know how many bullets, didn't know how to safely unload his firearm, etc.). But the jury representativeness issue is a non starter for an appeal. There is a recent Supreme Court decision on this matter, and basically it says it doesn't matter what the ultimate composition of the jury is, as long as the jury roll contained a reasonable cross section of people living in a community.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...15373/index.do

I can see why supporters of the victim felt the way they did... if their feeling is that Indigenous lives are less valued, then you can appreciate why they would want Indigenous jurors on a trial involving a non-Indigenous accused. Not having any is a tough pill to swallow and I'm sure that for some, it felt like the fix was in (even though personally I don't believe that was the case at all).

But even then, would it have changed anything? Who knows how the jury came down on this. Would Indigenous jurors have found Stanley guilty? If so, why? It was a complicated case and I don't think it would have been a slam-dunk for the crown even with a full slate of Indigenous jurors. The facts are the facts.

I can appreciate that the not-guilty verdict was unsatisfying... when someone is killed, you always want to see justice served. But given the circumstances I still don't think it's unreasonable. I don't think that having Indigenous jurors would have changed the outcome.

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

But even then, would it have changed anything? Who knows how the jury came down on this. Would Indigenous jurors have found Stanley guilty? If so, why? It was a complicated case and I don't think it would have been a slam-dunk for the crown even with a full slate of Indigenous jurors. The facts are the facts.

To me this requiring a certain racial make-up of a jury is just a little bit concerning.

The argument that is currently being made to suggest more indigenous jurors should have been present in the Stanley trial would seem to suggest that he wouldn't have "got away with it". But that assumes that simply being indigenous juror means that you will "support your own", regardless of the evidence. Maybe I am reading this all wrong, but it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Would the Boushie family have been more supportive of the outcome if one or two of the jurors were Indigenous? I seriously doubt it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

To me this requiring a certain racial make-up of a jury is just a little bit concerning.

The argument that is currently being made to suggest more indigenous jurors should have been present in the Stanley trial would seem to suggest that he wouldn't have "got away with it". But that assumes that simply being indigenous juror means that you will "support your own", regardless of the evidence. Maybe I am reading this all wrong, but it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Would the Boushie family have been more supportive of the outcome if one or two of the jurors were Indigenous? I seriously doubt it.

Agreed.

I agree with the general sentiment of the judge in the case I posted earlier, i.e. sometimes the logistics of reaching out to prospective Indigenous jurors can be messy for a number of reasons, but the effort should be made to expand the reach of jury selection to groups that may be inadvertently overlooked. But that's as far as I'd be willing to go with it... I'd never want to see quotas established, for example.

[Authentic_City]

^I do think juries are problematic in general. How often is a jury truly representative of the community? But yeah, I'm not sure that mandating that 10% of a jury be indigenous would necessarily change the outcome (or whatever the correct proportion might be). As you say, it's easy to second guess the decision, but it's not hard to see why they arrived at the decision they did. We'll see what happens now with the appeal.

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by drew

To me this requiring a certain racial make-up of a jury is just a little bit concerning.

The argument that is currently being made to suggest more indigenous jurors should have been present in the Stanley trial would seem to suggest that he wouldn't have "got away with it". But that assumes that simply being indigenous juror means that you will "support your own", regardless of the evidence. Maybe I am reading this all wrong, but it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Would the Boushie family have been more supportive of the outcome if one or two of the jurors were Indigenous? I seriously doubt it.

No that isn't the argument at all. Sorry if it comes across that way. I think a jury of twelve aboriginals would likely have come to the same conclusion. So excluding all of them is what is leaving the bad taste. At least that is how I see it.

[Ando]

Not to dismiss the importance of this issue, but it doesn't really fit in the Manitoba provincial politics forum. Perhaps the Moderator should move it to Western Espresso.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by drew

To me this requiring a certain racial make-up of a jury is just a little bit concerning.

The argument that is currently being made to suggest more indigenous jurors should have been present in the Stanley trial would seem to suggest that he wouldn't have "got away with it". But that assumes that simply being indigenous juror means that you will "support your own", regardless of the evidence. Maybe I am reading this all wrong, but it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Would the Boushie family have been more supportive of the outcome if one or two of the jurors were Indigenous? I seriously doubt it.

Wouldn't requiring a certain number of people be of a certain race be racist regardless of which race is requiring a certain amount of representation?

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Ando

Not to dismiss the importance of this issue, but it doesn't really fit in the Manitoba provincial politics forum. Perhaps the Moderator should move it to Western Espresso.

Sorry, that was my fault. I thought because of the protests in Winnipeg and MP Oulette and Kinew making statements about the issue that it fit here.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

you missed the point. the verdict isn't the issue. The issue is the composition of the jury and the appearance of possible bias. the system needs to be changed so that people cant be ruled off juries due to the colour of their skin. A true conservative would agree with that. A racist wouldn't.

The verdict isn’t the issue, excuse me but it’s an issue and only because Stanley wasn’t convicted, had Stanley been First Nations and Boushie non-First Nations you wouldn’t have heard squat about the case.

So now we’re doing everything based on ethnic diversity, had Stanley or Boushie been African Canadian should we have looked for black jurors in N. Battleford SK to appease everyone?

Wab Kinew didn’t have any problem giving his two cents (for what that’s worth) on the jury decision, last I checked he was a Manitoba politician so I would guess the Stanley/Boushie trial fits in this thread.

[Tacheguy]

[/b]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

the verdict isn’t the issue, excuse me but it’s an issue and only because stanley wasn’t convicted, had stanley been first nations and boushie non-first nations you wouldn’t have heard squat about the case.
[/b] if the jury was all aboriginal? You would be organizing your militia.

so now we’re doing everything based on ethnic diversity, had stanley or boushie been african canadian should we have looked for black jurors in n. Battleford sk to appease everyone?
[/b]the issue here is whether you would exclude a potential black juror from the jury. Look up over your head - there is a conversation going by.

wab kinew didn’t have any problem giving his two cents (for what that’s worth) on the jury decision, last i checked he was a manitoba politician so i would guess the stanley/boushie trial fits in this thread.

[dmacc]

hahaha, you two can never be put in the same room together.

[The Unknown Poster]

Manslaughter. Defense of ones property or person has to be reasonable. Shooting someone in the back of the head as they are leaving is not imminent threat.

If the gun misfired (and I seem to recall that evidence being rather dubious), its manslaughter. if he pulled the trigger himself, its 2dn degree murder. Either way, it isnt an acquittal. I heard some way the parents of the victim were treated as well and it sounds horrendous.

However, the PM, who comes across uninformed at the best of times, should keep his yap shut.