INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A juror can be challenged without cause regardless of previous challenges based on cause.
SECTION WORDING
634(1) A juror may be challenged peremptorily whether or not the juror has been challenged for cause pursuant to section 638.
EXPLANATION
Section 634(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides guidance for challenging a juror peremptorily in criminal trials. This essence of this provision is that a juror can be challenged without providing a reason, including if they have not been challenged for cause through section 638. Challenging a juror for cause typically requires that there are legally justifiable reasons that the juror may be biased, or unable to consider the evidence impartially. Section 634(1) grants the additional option of a peremptory challenge, which allows the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to exclude jurors from the trial without having to give reasons or justifications for doing so. Peremptory challenges are typically used to eliminate jurors who may not be excluded for cause, but who are thought to be less favorable to one side or the other. This tool can be effective in making sure that cases are tried by truly impartial juries, and that no juror is picked to serve who may have a personal or professional bias. However, peremptory challenges are not unlimited, and a set number of challenges may be made by each side depending on the nature and seriousness of the crime. The number of challenges is often determined by the court prior to the commencement of the trial. In summary, section 634(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a significant provision in the process of selecting an impartial jury for trial. It provides an extra layer of protection against biased juries and ensures that justice is served fairly to all the parties involved.
COMMENTARY
Section 634(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial element in the jury selection process. It allows lawyers to challenge potential jurors without having to provide a specific reason for their objections. This is in contrast to challenges for cause under section 638, which require lawyers to show a valid reason why a juror should not be selected for a trial. Peremptory challenges serve an essential purpose in the criminal justice system. They give lawyers the ability to shape the jury by removing jurors who they believe may have preconceived biases or may be unsympathetic to their case. These challenges are used to ensure that the jury is impartial and free from any undue influence or external factors that could sway their judgment. However, the use of peremptory challenges has been subject to controversy, particularly in high-profile cases where lawyers have been accused of using challenges to remove potential jurors of a specific race or gender. This has led to calls for the elimination or reform of peremptory challenges in the Canadian justice system, with some arguing that these challenges can undermine the fairness and impartiality of the jury selection process. In 2019, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-75, which proposed to eliminate peremptory challenges for jury selection in criminal trials. The rationale behind the proposed change was to eliminate the potential for discrimination during the jury selection process. Instead, lawyers would be required to provide reasons for any objections to the selection of a specific juror. Although the proposed changes were met with some opposition, the bill eventually received Royal Assent in 2019, and peremptory challenges were eliminated from the jury selection process in criminal trials in Canada. The move was seen as a step towards ensuring greater fairness and impartiality in the Canadian justice system. It is essential to note that the removal of peremptory challenges has not been without criticism. Some lawyers argue that this change has removed an essential tool that was often used to remove biased jurors from the trial process. However, the importance of ensuring an impartial and fair jury selection process cannot be overstated. In conclusion, section 634(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada allowed for peremptory challenges during jury selection in criminal trials. These challenges served an essential purpose in shaping an impartial and fair jury. However, in light of concerns around potential discrimination and bias during the jury selection process, peremptory challenges were eliminated with the passing of Bill C-75 in 2019. This change was seen as a significant step towards ensuring greater fairness and impartiality in the Canadian justice system.
STRATEGY
Section 634(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada gives the lawyers the right to challenge a juror without giving any reason. It's known as peremptory challenge and is a valuable tool for lawyers in the jury selection process. This section of the Criminal Code can have a significant impact on the outcome of a trial, as it allows lawyers to remove jurors who they think are unfavorable to their case. In this essay, we will discuss some strategic considerations when dealing with Section 634(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and the strategies that lawyers can employ. One of the first strategic considerations when dealing with this section is the number of peremptory challenges available to the lawyers. The number of peremptory challenges available depends on the type of case being tried. In general, criminal cases have more peremptory challenges available than civil cases. Lawyers need to consider how many jurors they want to remove and how many peremptory challenges they have. It's important to use peremptory challenges strategically to remove jurors who they believe would be unfavorable to their case. Another strategic consideration is the order of exercising peremptory challenges. In Canada, the Crown is the first to exercise peremptory challenges, followed by the defense. The order of exercise is essential because it can determine which jurors will be removed. If the Crown removes a juror that the defense would have removed, it may end up leaving a more favorable juror in the jury pool for the defense. Lawyers should also consider the demographics of the jury pool when deciding which jurors to remove. Demographics, such as age, gender, occupation, and race, can influence how a juror views the evidence. Lawyers must consider their client's case and use peremptory challenges to remove jurors who may have a bias that could negatively impact their case. Another strategy that lawyers can employ is to use challenges for cause before exercising peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause allows lawyers to remove jurors who may have a bias or prejudice that could affect their ability to be impartial. By using challenges for cause first, lawyers can remove jurors that would have been removed using a peremptory challenge, thus preserving their peremptory challenges for jurors who are not disqualified. In conclusion, Section 634(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides lawyers with an important tool in the jury selection process. Considering the number of peremptory challenges available, the order of exercise, and the demographics of the jury pool are essential when deciding which jurors to remove. Using challenges for cause before peremptory challenges can also be a useful strategy. It's important to remember that peremptory challenges should be used strategically and with the objective of selecting a fair and impartial jury that will deliver justice.