Criminal Code of Canada - section 640(2.2) - Exclusion order

section 640(2.2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section outlines the process for determining the validity of a challenge made against a juror in a trial.

SECTION WORDING

640(2.2) If an order is made under subsection (2.1), two unsworn jurors, who are then exempt from the order, or two persons present who are appointed by the court for that purpose, shall be sworn to determine whether the ground of challenge is true. Those persons so appointed shall exercise their duties until 12 jurors — or 13 or 14 jurors, as the case may be, if the judge makes an order under subsection 631(2.2) — and any alternate jurors are sworn.

EXPLANATION

Section 640(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the process for determining whether a ground for challenge against a juror is true. If an order is made under subsection (2.1), which allows for a challenge against a juror, two unsworn jurors who are exempt from the order or two court-appointed individuals present will be sworn in to determine the validity of the challenge. This process is critical to ensuring that the jurors selected for a trial are unbiased and impartial in their decision-making. Challenges can be made for a variety of reasons, including connections to the accused or the crime itself, previous convictions, or other factors that may compromise the juror's ability to make an unbiased decision. By appointing individuals to assess the validity of a challenge, the court is able to confirm whether the grounds for the challenge are legitimate and protect the integrity of the trial. This is particularly important in criminal cases, where the stakes are high, and the outcome of the trial can significantly impact the lives of the accused, the victim, and their families. In some cases, the judge may order that additional jurors are sworn in to sit on the jury. This may be necessary if the trial is expected to be lengthy or if there is a high likelihood of jurors being disqualified due to challenges or other reasons. Overall, section 640(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a crucial role in upholding the fairness and impartiality of jury trials in Canada. It ensures that jurors are selected based on their ability to make unbiased decisions and that any challenges made are thoroughly assessed before a final jury is sworn in.

COMMENTARY

Section 640(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out a crucial aspect of the Canadian criminal justice system - the role of unsworn jurors in determining challenges to the selection of jurors. In the Canadian criminal justice system, jurors play a critical role in ensuring fair trials for accused persons. The selection of jurors is thus a vitally important process. The section establishes a procedure for handling challenges to the selection of jurors. If an order is made under subsection (2.1) of the Criminal Code, two unsworn jurors or two persons appointed by the court are to be sworn in to determine whether the ground of challenge (i.e., the reason why an accused wants certain jurors to be dismissed) is true. This process serves two primary purposes. First, it helps to prevent bias from creeping into the selection of jurors. Second, it ensures that the rights of accused persons to a fair trial are upheld. The role of unsworn jurors in this process is crucial. Unsworn jurors are essentially members of the jury who have not yet been sworn in to serve as jurors. They are known to be impartial members of the public who have been called to the courtroom to sit in on the trial. By appointing two such individuals as part of the process for determining jury challenges, the Canadian criminal justice system ensures that the decision-making process is independent and unbiased. The section also establishes that the individuals appointed to determine whether grounds for a challenge are true must serve until a sufficient number of jurors are sworn in. This is important because it ensures that challenges to the selection of jurors are handled quickly and efficiently. It also prevents delays in the trial process that could negatively impact the rights of the accused. Overall, section 640(2.2) is a crucial part of the Criminal Code of Canada. It establishes a clear procedure for handling challenges to the selection of jurors that helps to ensure a fair and impartial trial for all accused persons. By appointing unsworn jurors to help determine the validity of challenges, the Canadian justice system ensures that the selection of jurors is unbiased and independent. This, in turn, helps to uphold the cornerstone principles of the criminal justice system - fairness and impartiality.

STRATEGY

Section 640(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the selection of alternate jurors in criminal trials. When a juror is challenged, the court has to determine whether the challenge is valid. If it is valid, then a new juror is selected to replace the challenged juror. This process continues until 12 jurors (or 13 or 14 in special cases) are selected and sworn, along with any alternate jurors. There are several strategic considerations that trial lawyers need to take into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. The first consideration is the timing of the challenge. A trial lawyer may have a valid reason for challenging a juror, but they need to decide whether it is the right time to do so. There may be strategic advantages to challenging a juror early in the trial, or alternatively, it may be better to wait until later in the trial, depending on the circumstances. Another consideration is the reason for the challenge. A lawyer needs to have a valid reason for challenging a juror, and they may need to provide evidence or arguments to support their challenge. If the challenge is successfully upheld, then a new juror will be selected. However, if the challenge is unsuccessful, then the lawyer may have lost an opportunity to remove a potentially biased juror, and may have also lost credibility with the remaining jurors. The number of challenges that a lawyer has is also a strategic consideration. In some criminal trials, lawyers have a limited number of challenges that they can make, and these can be used up quickly if challenges are made indiscriminately. Lawyers need to decide which potential jurors are the most problematic, and save their challenges for those jurors. Finally, lawyers need to be aware of the appearance of their challenges. If a lawyer appears to be challenging jurors for reasons that are not related to the case, or for discriminatory reasons, then this can create a negative impression on the remaining jurors. Lawyers need to be strategic in their challenges, and ensure that they are taking steps to protect their clients while maintaining the integrity of the trial. There are several strategies that lawyers can employ when working with section 640(2.2) of the Criminal Code. One strategy is to conduct a thorough investigation of potential jurors before the trial begins, in order to identify any potential biases or conflicts of interest. This can help lawyers to make informed decisions about which jurors to challenge. Another strategy is to use challenges strategically, in order to remove jurors who may be biased or problematic. Lawyers can employ psychological techniques to try to identify which jurors are likely to be most sympathetic to their case, and which jurors may be more likely to be influenced by the opposing counsel. Finally, lawyers can also use challenges strategically to try to manipulate the composition of the jury. For example, if a lawyer believes that the majority of the jury will be sympathetic to their case, they may use challenges to try to remove the few jurors who are not sympathetic, in order to create a more favourable jury for their client. Overall, there are many strategic considerations that lawyers need to take into account when working with section 640(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. By carefully considering the timing, reason, and number of challenges, as well as the appearance of their challenges, lawyers can work to protect their clients while maintaining the integrity of the trial. By employing a variety of strategic techniques, lawyers can also maximize their chances of achieving a favourable outcome for their clients.