...The latest courtroom turn of events happened Thursday, when a note was sent to the judge by a juror in the trial that got underway in late April. The note outlined concerns that Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding, lawyers representing Formenton, appeared "every day" to be whispering to each other and laughing "as if they are discussing our [jurors'] appearance" as they entered the courtroom.
"This is unprofessional and unacceptable," the note said.
After speaking, all five defence teams asked for a mistrial or for the jury to be discharged and the case to proceed with just a judge. The lawyers cited perceived "prejudice" that the jurors might have against the defence and the "chilling effect" on those lawyers, who were worried to "zealously" defend their clients lest their gestures be misinterpreted by the jury.
Assistant Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham argued that jurors could be asked if they could set aside any impressions they may have formed of the defence lawyers and given instructions reminding them to only consider the evidence before them, and to put out of their minds any negative ideas about Brown and Dudding.
Carroccia ruled Friday, after taking the evening to consider the options, that the trial would proceed with her oversight alone.
Because Carroccia let the jury go, the publication ban on anything heard without the jury present has now lifted, so we are able to report more of what happened since proceedings began and a jury was chosen in late April.
Lawyers for Formenton issue statement
Although both the Crown and defence agreed to the jury's discharge and for the judge-only proceedings, the decision drew swift reaction from lawyers for Formenton.
"We are not in the habit of making public statements during a trial, and this is likely to be the only time we do so in this case," said a letter sent from Brown to the media on behalf of his client's legal team.
The letter said discharging the jury "was a regrettable development" for Formenton, and noted, "He had very much wanted to be tried by a jury of his peers and has now lost that opportunity.
"We, his counsel, found ourselves involved in the unusual chain of events that led to this outcome."
It went on to give background on what led to the judge's move Friday.
"In short, a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanour was disrespectful of her. This was a [sic] unfortunate misinterpretation. No defence counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. … The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function," the letter said.
"In a larger sense, perceptions and appearances play a central role in this trial, particularly, appearances that have been captured on videotape and perceptions about courtroom testimony," the letter adds. "If a single juror were prone to leap to unwarranted conclusions — and potentially impress these erroneous conclusions on their fellow jurors — the ends of justice and the right to a fair trial would be jeopardized.
"Accordingly, we will now be going forward with a trial by judge alone. We have every confidence that our trial judge will ensure a full and fair proceeding."...
lfpress.com
