Dozens shun jury duty

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 6/1/2011 (3675 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The search for citizens to hear one of Winnipeg's most gripping murder mysteries has ended after several frustrating legal twists and turns.

Jury selection was held Thursday for the Candace Derksen case, proving that many people aren't exactly knocking down doors to fulfil their civic duty by sitting on a jury. The nearly four-hour ordeal saw many prospective jurors say why they wouldn't be able to hear the case, which begins Jan. 17 and is expected to last six weeks.

Fifty-six people had to be screened in order to choose a panel of 12 jurors and two alternates. Many of the 42 who were rejected had a litany of excuses as to why they couldn't participate, which often tested the patience of Queen's Bench Justice Glenn Joyal.

"You're basically sabotaging your participation for reasons that aren't entirely sympathetic. That's not acceptable. Frankly, I feel that's a bit of an affront," Joyal told one young man who claimed he might have a tough time maintaining "emotional neutrality" based on the expected length of the trial.

Mark Edward Grant, 44, is charged with first-degree murder for the November 1984 kidnapping and killing of 13-year-old Candace as she walked home from her East Kildonan school. The case generated plenty of publicity over the years, most recently when Grant was arrested in 2007.

As a result, lawyers were granted permission Thursday to put potential jurors through a screening process in an attempt to determine their prior knowledge of the case. Four different questions were asked of the prospective jurors, who were randomly selected from a larger pool and questioned one at a time in court.

Many people expressed knowledge about the case, although that didn't result in an automatic rejection. The key issue was whether they could still hear the facts and render a verdict based solely on the evidence and not on pre-existing knowledge or beliefs. To assist in the process, two other civillians were sworn in as makeshift judges to determine whether the prospective jurors were biased based on their answers to the four questions.

Of the 56 potential jurors, eight were deemed to be biased by their peers and sent home. Crown and defence lawyers were also given 20 challenges each, in which they could reject potential jurors without giving an explanation. Grant's lawyers used 12 such challenges, while the Crown used two.

Joyal dismissed the other 20 prospective jurors for a variety of reasons, including upcoming trips and conflicts with work. "That (work) reason is as predictable as night following day," Joyal told one young man who said it would be a major inconvenience to sit on a jury for so long.

An older man made it clear he didn't want to be in court and claimed he once discussed particulars of Derksen's autopsy while on a hunting trip with another pathologist he knew.

"You were prepared to say just about anything to get out of this, weren't you?" Joyal said before ordering him out of the courtroom.

Others offered more tangible reasons such as difficultly with English and problems with their hearing.

Grant was arrested three years ago after police reopened the investigation into Derksen's slaying. The teen was allegedly grabbed off the street on Nov. 30, 1984, bound with rope and left to freeze to death inside a shed. Her body was found on Jan. 17, 1985, following an exhaustive search that included hundreds of volunteers.

Three pubic hairs were found on or near Derksen's body, although police have said she wasn't sexually assaulted. Four scalp hairs that appeared to have been lightly bleached near the roots were on Derksen's clothing. Police weren't able to test the hairs for DNA until technology improved in 1993. By that time, police were looking at a dangerous sex offender as a potential suspect in what proved to be a false lead.

Police took another crack at DNA testing in 2001 -- but no known profiles were obtained. In 2006, police learned a private lab in Thunder Bay, Ont., had the ability to run more extensive hair-shaft DNA tests. The testing involved identifying the maternal lineage of the subject donor, which is DNA passed from mother to child.

www.mikeoncrime.com

Judging jurors

Defence lawyers were allowed to ask four questions about any prior knowledge of Derksen's death, the accused Mark Grant and whether potential jurors felt they could be impartial. Lawyers were assisted by two civilians who were sworn in as jury judges. They decided whether the prospective juror appeared to be biased.

-- Eight potential jurors were dismissed by their peers for expressing a possible bias.

-- Four potential jurors were dismissed by Justice Glenn Joyal after they expressed concerns about understanding English.

-- Four potential jurors were dismissed by Joyal because of conflicts with potential witnesses.

-- Four potential jurors were dismissed by Joyal because of employment issues.

-- Four potential jurors were dismissed by Joyal because of upcoming holidays already purchased and paid for.

-- Four potential jurors were dismissed by Joyal because of medical issues/hearing concerns.

-- Crown and defence lawyers each had up to 20 challenges in which they could reject prospective unbiased jurors without explanation.

-- Twelve potential jurors were rejected by defence challenges.

-- Two potential jurors were rejected by Crown challenges.