Challenge for Cause in Sexual Assault Cases

• Author: David M. Tanovich; David Paciocco; Steven Skurka
• Pages: 239-242

Appendix

I

Challenge

for

Cause

Allowed1

R.v.L.(R.)

R. v.

Musson

R. v.

Ross

R. v.

Williamson

R.v.

W.(S.)

R. v.

Nixon

R. v.

Lawrence

15

Oct. 1996

13

Sept. 1996

18

July 1996

2

7 May

1996

1 May

1996

2

9

April

1996

8 May

1995

Justice

Zelinski

Justice Clarke

Justice

Salhany

Justice Cosgrove

Justice Langdon

Justice Burke-Smith

Justice

Wein

Milton, Ont.

Milton, Ont.

Kitchener, Ont.

Brockville,

Ont.

Brampton,

Ont.

Guelph, Ont.

Toronto,

Ont.

Female

/ 6 (at

time

of

the

allegations)

Male

Female

-

(Children)

Female

Female

/ 6

41

-

-

26

-

31

32

29

-

-

42

-

32

41

1

Note:

In all of

these cases,

the

defence

was

permitted

at a

minimum

to

inquire

as to

whether

the

nature

of the

charges would preclude

the

potential juror

from

rendering

an

impartial verdict. Most

of the

data

about

the

cases

has

been collected

from the

following sources: D.M.

Tanovich,

"Re

thinking

Jury

Selection: Challenges

for

Cause

and

Peremptory Challenges" (1994)

30

C.R. (4th)

310;

D.M. Paciocco, "Challenges

for

Cause

Based

on

Non-Impartiality" (1994)

1

S.O.L.R.

27;

D.M. Paciocco, "Challenges

for

Cause:

Cameron

and

Sexual

Offence

Cases" (1995)

1

S.O.L.R.

73-77;

S.

Skurka, "Challenge

for

Cause: Questions Allowed Since

R. v.

Parks" (Address

to the

Criminal Lawyers' Association, Annual

Convention

and

Education Programme,

11-13

November 1994),

and N.

Vidmar, "Generic Prejudice

and the

Presumption

of

Guilt

in Sex

Abuse

Trials"

(1997)

21

Law and

Human Behavior

5.

Case

Date

Trial

Judge

Location

Sex/Age

of

Complainant

Number

of

Jurors

Questioned

%

ofJurors

Found

Partial