R. v. Kokotailo

R. v. Kokotailo

Publication reporting the accused's prior conviction created a realistic potential for partiality that displaced the presumption of juror impartiality; accordingly the defence was entitled to have prospective jurors questioned and challenged for cause about their awareness of the prior verdict and its effect on their ability to be impartial.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1915
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jamie Robert Kokotailo
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal First Degree Murder Retrial / Pre Trial Conference on Application for Challenge for Cause Prior to Retrial
Outcome
Defence application allowed.
Legal Topics
Challenge for Cause, Juror Impartiality, Retrial, Section 638(1)(b) Criminal Code
Source Language
English

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jamie Robert Kokotailo

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal First Degree Murder Retrial / Pre Trial Conference on Application for Challenge for Cause Prior to Retrial

  1. 1 Whether publication of the accused's prior conviction creates a realistic potential for partiality in the jury pool
  2. 2 Whether prospective jurors should be questioned individually and challenged for cause regarding awareness of the prior jury verdict
  3. 3 Application of s. 638(1)(b) Criminal Code and related jurisprudence on the presumption of juror impartiality

Ratio Decidendi

Publication reporting the accused's prior conviction created a realistic potential for partiality that displaced the presumption of juror impartiality; accordingly the defence was entitled to have prospective jurors questioned and challenged for cause about their awareness of the prior verdict and its effect on their ability to be impartial.

Court Disposition

Defence application allowed.

Orders

  • Permit prospective jurors to be challenged for cause by asking whether they are aware of the jury verdict in the first trial and, if so, whether that knowledge would affect their ability to be impartial and render a true verdict based solely on the evidence and law at the retrial