Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Dismisses Jury After Complaint of Defence Lawyers Making Fun of Jurors

Strategic Insights -

A shocking turn of events has occurred in the high-profile Hockey Canada sexual assault trial, with the judge dismissing the jury and deciding to continue the trial as a judge-alone case. The decision follows a complaint from multiple jurors who felt that two defence lawyers, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding, appeared to be making fun of them. The complainant, who testified for nine days, will not have to return to court, and witnesses will not have to retestify.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Hockey Canada sexual assault trial has dismissed its jury after a complaint from multiple jurors who felt that defence lawyers Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding made fun of them.
  • The trial, which involves five former members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team, will now continue as a judge-alone case before Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia.
  • The complainant, who testified for nine days, will not have to return to court, and witnesses will not have to retestify.
  • Defence lawyers Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding have denied making fun of the jurors, and the Crown and defence had agreed to continue the trial as a judge-alone case.
  • The defence team had argued that the jurors' comments about being mocked were a worse form of jury tainting than in the first mistrial, and that it would lead to an unfair trial for the accused men.
  • The Crown had pushed to keep the jury, but the judge found that an inquiry of the jury would be insufficient to remedy the problem.

Statistics:

  • 9 days: The length of time the complainant testified in court.
  • 5: The number of former members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team accused of sexually assaulting the complainant.
  • 14: The number of jurors on the jury that heard the case before being dismissed.
  • 2: The number of defence lawyers who were accused of making fun of the jurors, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding.
  • 1: The number of times the defence team had argued for a mistrial due to juror bias, previously in the first trial.

Sources:

  • Toronto Star: Jacques Gallant;
  • Superior Court of Ontario (unspecified source)