Posted by izzy45 AUG. 5, 2009
Trials can and will take as long as they need to, but they do try to narrow down how long a trial will take for scheduling purposes (for both the court, crown and counsel), all would have others matters that they are dealing with besides this particular case, so before they actually head to trial. (Making sure that everyone is available for that particular length of time. They also would inform a jury of how long they will be involved as it will impact their lives as well. I would think a matter like this would probably take about 6 weeks - just a guess - and they will be tried separately - or so I think I read, which could add additional time. Once a trial starts it has to begin and end with the same Judge, so they will need to coordinate his/her schedule to make sure that judge doesn't have anything else he/she is supposed to be hearing within that time frame. The crown will have other matters to deal with, even though their load will be increasingly lessened to give them time to prepare for trial, I would imagine they still have somewhat of a caseload, and I would think the same would apply for defense counsel. But the trial is set mainly on how many witnesses (police, civilians, expert witnesses, accused etc), how long for opening/closing statements, a general idea of how long everyone may be on the stand, how long for each side to present their case. It can't really be predicted with 100% accuracy, but I would think they would have a general idea of what type of questions they will be asking and a general idea of how long this may take.
Disclosure is the Crown providing all the evidence they have to the defense. They MUST disclose everything they have prior to trial, which is probably the reason for all of the return appearances for the accused in court, at each visit they would be given additional disclosure if it were available or an idea if future disclousure will be coming.
Pretrials and Preliminary Hearings are a way of narrowing down the issues. Defense may agree that certain evidence the Crown has will be admitted and what will most likely be argued. It narrows the issues down and thus cuts down the length of trial time. It allows both sides a chance to focus their case in a particular area and prepare for the trial a bit better.
I think I've read on here that a change of venue has been discussed, given the size of Woodstock and the increasing popularity of the case, if the accused can't get a fair trial and that can be proven they may ask for a change of location. Picking a jury of your peers in a small town, I would think, would be incredibly difficult given the rumour spread, and finding someone who is impartial would be more difficult.
Challenge for cause for a jury is a list of questions that they would be asked to narrow down the jury pool to those they feel are most impartial. (If I'm recalling that correctly!!)
The courts in themselves are very busy and the government has laid out a plan to reduce the number of court appearances from the time of the charge being laid to a final outcome, however the court is still very busy and all of this just takes time. Neither side would want to rush into a trial until they had all of their "ducks in a row"!
Hope that helps!
Posted by izzy45 - AUG.11, 2009
Maybe this has already been answered, but I've seen it asked a couple of times, so maybe I can help out.
When an accused pleads guilty, typically the crown and defense will agree on what will be read in court prior to the plea itself. The presiding Judge still needs to hear enough information to assure him/herself the accused is guilty of the crime. If there is to be a plea, everything from what facts to be read in, a joint submission (maybe) on sentencing. The crown will read in their statement - usually a pared down version of events, the defense will let the judge know this is correct or if there is any more they wish to add and then there will be a finding of guilt. Prior to sentencing the accused will be asked if he/she has anything to add. The sentencing could be the same day or it could go over to another day - for a variety of reasons. Typically crown and defense will give a joint submission on sentencing - what they agree the sentence for the accused should be - however the presiding Justice does not have to accept it. Typically they do, but if the sentence is too lenient for example, they won't accept it and aren't bound to accept it.
One thing I have't seen mentioned is if there has been a ban on publication in regards to either accused. If there is, and given the nature of the crime there very well could be, a ban on publication could keep certain facts from ever being divulged in the media and would prohibit those who are in court as spectators from discussing the facts of the case outside of the courtroom depending upon which ban is in place....if there is one, but if there isn't one now, I would assume it would be asked for at some point.
Posted by izzy45 AUG. 11, 2009 Post #406
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4037230&posted=1#post4037230
Hello!
I really think the third court appearance is a matter this substantial won't result in a whole bunch. She'll likely appear by video and pretty much just be remanded to her next court appearance. (Realistically with all that is involved, I'm sure she will make numerous court appearances via video - which I'm assuming they both are appearing by video for court at this point.) Coming to court is a way to for their counsel to gather any additional disclosure and get future dates for court appearances. They may set up a crown resolution meeting (not held in court), a pretrial (held in front of a judge) or a preliminary hearing (also in front of a judge). (So, yep, we do have prelims in Canada.) Given the nature of the crime - being murder - it's automatically going to have to go to trial in front of a Superior Court Judge, but holding a preliminary hearing will allow them to narrow down the issues, focus on witnesses, etc. (I think I talked about this before.)
During a prelim. hearing the accused will be in the court room, but not necessarily all of the evidence will be presented, they will be read the charges against them, they will be read their right to a trial by judge or judge and jury. At this point their counsel will say how they will elect to be tried and some evidence may be called. For example, it's an automatic that they will have their trial in front of a Superior Court Justice, but there may be a certain witness that the defense wants to hear from and it could be only one person called to the stand, could be more, or could be none. They could waive a prelim. hearing and just be "committed to trial". Typically prelims are open to the public, but as I posted this morning I'm sure a publication ban will be put into place, if it's not already, to protect the victim, their family, etc.
Unless I've missed something, and a plea is actually going to be entered, it wouldn't be if she's appearing by video. A plea can only be entered in front of a Judge and how they have been appearing so far has been by video - I think!- and a plea for murder is still done in front of a Superior Court Judge - unless it's a young offender, then it can be done by an Ontario Court Judge. (But, a plea of manslaughter could be taken in front of a Ontario Court Judge.) I don't think either will enter a plea anytime soon from what I've read, even if that is their ultimate decision, it would still take some time to set the date in front of the judge and get together a joint submission between the crown and defense.
I think it would be well into next year before a trial could be held.