Criminal Code of Canada - section 634(3) - Where there are multiple counts

section 634(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

When two or more charges are tried together, both the prosecutor and accused are limited to the number of peremptory challenges allowed for the charge that has the most challenges available.

SECTION WORDING

634(3) Where two or more counts in an indictment are to be tried together, the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled only to the number of peremptory challenges provided in respect of the count for which the greatest number of peremptory challenges is available.

EXPLANATION

Section 634(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the rules and regulations that must be followed when dealing with criminal indictments that contain multiple counts. When multiple counts are to be tried together, the prosecutor and the accused will only be entitled to the number of peremptory challenges that is offered to them in relation to the count that has the highest number of peremptory challenges available. A peremptory challenge is the ability for a party to remove a potential juror from the jury without having to provide a reason for doing so. The purpose of peremptory challenges is to ensure that both the accused and the prosecutor can be confident that an impartial jury will be selected to hear the case. Without peremptory challenges, a party may be forced to accept a juror who could be biased or have a conflict of interest. The reason why the number of peremptory challenges is limited when dealing with multiple counts is to prevent either the prosecutor or the accused from abusing their right to peremptory challenges to create a jury that is biased in their favour. By limiting the number of peremptory challenges, it helps ensure that both parties take their time in selecting unbiased jurors who will be fair and impartial throughout the trial. Overall, Section 634(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important legal provision that helps ensure that both the accused and the prosecutor are treated fairly and that there is a level playing field when it comes to selecting jurors. It is designed to prevent any unfairness or bias in the trial process, which is crucial to upholding justice in Canada's legal system.

COMMENTARY

Section 634(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the issue of peremptory challenges in multi-count indictments. The provision sets out that when two or more counts in an indictment are to be tried together, both the prosecutor and the accused are only entitled to the number of peremptory challenges applicable to the count that allows for the greatest number of peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are an important aspect of the Canadian criminal justice system, and they allow either the prosecution or the defense to challenge a prospective juror without giving a reason. Peremptory challenges are meant to ensure fairness in the trial process by allowing both sides to exclude jurors that they believe may be biased or unsuitable for the case. However, if peremptory challenges are not limited in multi-count indictments, they could allow the parties to manipulate the jury selection process. For example, in a multi-count indictment with one count allowing for more peremptory challenges, parties could focus on selecting a jury for that count and then use their additional challenges to influence the jury selection process for other counts. By limiting the number of peremptory challenges to the count with the most allotted, the potential for jury manipulation is reduced. Section 634(3)'s approach to peremptory challenges in multi-count indictments strikes a balance between the parties' interests in selecting a fair and impartial jury and the potential for jury manipulation. The limitation ensures that both parties have equal opportunities to challenge prospective jurors, ultimately enhancing the fairness of the trial process. However, there are some critiques of peremptory challenges and the impact of this section. Some argue that peremptory challenges permit both parties to exclude certain jurors without giving any reasons. In this sense, the selections could be arbitrary and exclusionary, leading to a lack of diversity on the jury. Additionally, the availability of peremptory challenges may exacerbate problems of group bias and lead to the exclusion of certain types of jurors, such as those from marginalized communities. Some argue that the best way to address these concerns would be to eliminate peremptory challenges altogether. This approach would mean that both parties would have to give justifications for any challenges they make, with the judge having the final say on whether the challenge is permissible. As a result, jury selection would be more transparent and may lead to more equitable and diverse jury selection. This change has taken place in parts of the US and some legal professionals have argued that Canada should follow its lead. In conclusion, section 634(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important protection against jury manipulation in multi-count indictments. However, ongoing discussions around peremptory challenges and their potential impact on diversity, and group bias show that there is still room for further reform of the jury selection process. A fair and impartial jury plays a critical role in ensuring the integrity of the Canadian criminal justice system and merits continued attention from all involved in the administration of the law.

STRATEGY

Section 634(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada places limitations on the number of peremptory challenges available to both the prosecutor and the accused in the event that two or more counts in an indictment are to be tried together. This means that both parties are only allowed a specific number of challenges, which may vary depending on the number of counts involved. While this section may seem straightforward, there are various strategic considerations to bear in mind. One of the most critical strategic considerations when dealing with Section 634(3) is understanding the available peremptory challenges for each count. As per the section, the prosecutor and the accused are both entitled to the highest number of challenges applicable to any single count in the indictment. This means that if one count has a higher number of permissible challenges, it will determine the limit for all the counts. For instance, if an indictment contains three counts, and one count allows for four challenges, while the other two permit only three, all three counts will be subject to a maximum of four peremptory challenges per party. Another crucial strategic consideration is the importance of using peremptory challenges wisely. Peremptory challenges are challenges that can be used by either party to exclude a potential juror without having to provide a reason for doing so. These challenges are used to eliminate potential jurors seen as unfavorable to the party's case. It is essential to note, however, that peremptory challenges are not infinite, and they should be used judiciously. After all, the more challenges used, the fewer potential jurors are left, and this may ultimately impact the final jury selection. A high-stakes strategy when it comes to Section 634(3) is the idea of consolidating charges to achieve a favorable limit on peremptory challenges. An example is where the prosecutor might consolidate minor charges into a single count to increase their peremptory challenges. This tactic is aimed at shrinking the jury pool and eliminating jurors that are hostile to the prosecution's case. On the other hand, defense counsel may seek to split the charges to reduce the prosecutor's number of peremptory challenges, thereby increasing the chances of favorable onlookers in the jury pool. Regarding strategies that could be employed when dealing with Section 634(3), an essential one is to review the jury pool thoroughly. Both parties (prosecution and defense counsel) should meticulously go through the jury pool to identify jurors who may have biases that align with their goal of winning the case. Examining the pool is critical because the parties are entitled to peremptory challenges without stating any specific reason. This strategy ensures favorable jurors are kept and unfavorable ones are excluded from the final selection. In conclusion, Section 634(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada limits the number of peremptory challenges that can be deployed by parties when trying multiple charges within an indictment. It is critical that parties strategize within the confines of this section to ensure they achieve their best shot at winning. They need to be cautious about the way they use their peremptory challenges. The goal of the parties when strategizing is to look for ways to limit the number of peremptory challenges available to their opponent while also maximizing their own potential for favorably selecting jurors.