R. v. Scott

R. v. Scott

The trial judge polled each juror and, having received negative answers and the sheriff deputies denying overhearing comments, determined there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and therefore no basis for a mistrial; furthermore, allowing the Crown to call the panel member would have been unfair because the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 NSSC 12
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jennifer Madeline Scott
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Jury Selection and Trial in Progress
Outcome
Trial continued; no mistrial declared; Crown withdrew request to call the panel member; former juror excused and replaced by first alternate; defence was permitted to challenge the panel member's credibility by calling the former juror
Legal Topics
Juror Misconduct, Extraneous Influence on Jury, Mistrial, Jury Polling, Admissibility of Witness Testimony, Bias
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Jury Procedure Evidence Juror Misconduct Extraneous Influence on Jury Mistrial Jury Polling Admissibility of Witness Testimony +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jennifer Madeline Scott

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Jury Selection and Trial in Progress

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mistrial should be declared due to juror contact/possible bias
  2. 2 Whether the Crown may call a panel member to testify about an alleged inculpatory statement by the accused
  3. 3 Whether the defence may call the former juror to challenge that panel member's credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge polled each juror and, having received negative answers and the sheriff deputies denying overhearing comments, determined there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and therefore no basis for a mistrial; furthermore, allowing the Crown to call the panel member would have been unfair because the jury had access to unique information bearing on the credibility contest between the panel member and the former juror, so the Crown withdrew and the judge stated he would have disallowed her testimony to protect trial fairness.

Court Disposition

Trial continued; no mistrial declared; Crown withdrew request to call the panel member; former juror excused and replaced by first alternate; defence was permitted to challenge the panel member's credibility by calling the former juror

Orders

  • Former juror excused and replaced by first alternate selected
  • Each juror individually polled with questions regarding discussions at jury selection