A second jury has been dismissed in the high-profile sexual assault trial involving several former members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team.
The accused—Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Cal Foote, and Alex Formenton—have pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from an alleged sexual assault of a 20-year-old woman in a London hotel room in June 2018, following a Hockey Canada gala.
The decision to dismiss a second set of jurors came after a juror submitted a note alleging that two defence lawyers were whispering and laughing in a way perceived as mocking jurors as they entered the courtroom.
“Multiple jury members feel we are being judged and made fun of by lawyers Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding,” read the note. “Every day when we enter the courtroom they observe us, whisper to each other and turn to each other and laugh as if they are discussing our appearance. This is unprofessional and unacceptable.”
Although the defence denied any misconduct, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia determined the jurors’ perceptions could compromise their impartiality and decided to continue the trial without a jury.
This marks the second time a jury has been dismissed in the case. A previous mistrial was declared in April, shortly after the trial began when one of the same defence lawyers, Hilary Dudding, ran into another juror at a nearby cafe.
The dismissal of two juries follows a more than week-long “marathon of testimony,” in which the complainant, E.M. — whose name is protected by a publication ban — described various sexual encounters with the accused.
Likely not helping matters in terms of maintaining an untainted and uncompromised jury was the growing number of protestors voicing support for the complainant, who have gathered outside the courthouse in the morning since at least May 2.
For weeks, the protestors have hoisted signs and chanted slogans such as “break the silence, stop the violence,” and have been a point of concern for the judge.
Arrangements were even made to have jurors come in through a secure entrance due to the size and volume of the protests.
The judge later heard protesters were planning to gather at both entrances — a development she found “concerning.”
“I will ask the staff to notify the police because if there’s any interference with the jurors, then those people should be arrested,” Carroccia said on May 5.
On Friday, Carroccia told the court that, while she had not witnessed any inappropriate behaviour by Brown or Dudding, it appeared to her that several members of the jury harboured negative feelings toward the defence.
“It is with reluctance that I have determined that the fairness of this trial has been compromised,” Carroccia said in her decision to discharge the jury — a decision she made to “protect trial fairness.”
The decision will have several implications for the trial.
Many of the publication bans previously in place have already been lifted in the absence of a jury.
Judge-only trials are usually shorter than jury trials, as well.
Perhaps most significantly, however, a judge will usually provide a written statement detailing their reasons for a decision — whereas a jury typically arrives at a verdict without an explanation.