INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
If two people cannot agree on a challenge to a juror, the court can discharge them and appoint two others to determine the challenge.
SECTION WORDING
640(4) Where, after what the court considers to be a reasonable time, the two persons who are sworn to determine whether the ground of challenge is true are unable to agree, the court may discharge them from giving a verdict and may direct two other persons to be sworn to determine whether the ground of challenge is true.
EXPLANATION
Section 640(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada refers to the process of jury selection in criminal trials. When an accused is brought to trial, a group of jurors is selected to hear the evidence and determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the charges laid against them. However, before the trial begins, both the prosecution and defense have the right to challenge potential jurors based on certain grounds, such as biases or lack of impartiality. When such challenges are made, two jurors are selected to determine whether the grounds of the challenge are true or not. If the two jurors cannot agree after a reasonable time, the court may discharge them and direct another two jurors to be selected to determine the truth of the challenge. This provision in the Criminal Code of Canada is essential to ensure that juries are impartial and unbiased in criminal trials. It allows the parties to challenge potential jurors without having to give a reason, which ensures that jurors are not unfairly influenced or have a predisposition towards either side. The provision also ensures that there is a fair and impartial jury selected for the trial. Overall, section 640(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that helps to uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality in the Canadian criminal justice system.
COMMENTARY
Section 640(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that deals with the procedure for jury challenges. This provision allows for the court to discharge the two persons sworn to determine whether the ground of challenge is true, if they are unable to agree after a reasonable time. The court can then direct two other persons to be sworn to make the determination. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the trial process is fair and impartial. It recognizes that there may be occasions when the persons sworn to determine a jury challenge are unable to agree. In such situations, allowing the court to discharge them and direct others to be sworn ensures that the challenge is still properly dealt with. The section also gives discretion to the court to determine what constitutes a reasonable time. This recognizes that each case is unique and that the time needed to agree upon a jury challenge may vary depending on the situation. The court needs to consider the circumstances of the case and what would be a reasonable amount of time for the persons involved to reach a decision. Section 640(4) also demonstrates the importance of the jury selection process. The ability to challenge the jury is an essential part of the process as it allows for the removal of jurors who may not be impartial or may not be fit to serve on a particular case. It is vital that the persons sworn to determine a challenge are able to reach a decision, but if they are unable to, this provision ensures that the integrity of the process is maintained. The provision also highlights the need for clear and concise communication during the jury selection process. To avoid situations where the persons sworn to determine a challenge are unable to agree, it is important that the grounds for the challenge are clearly articulated and that the persons involved fully understand the issues. Proper communication and understanding can help to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure that the trial can proceed in an efficient manner. Overall, section 640(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that helps to ensure the fairness and impartiality of the trial process. It recognizes that challenges to the jury may not always be resolved promptly and provides a mechanism for dealing with such situations. The provision also highlights the importance of effective communication and understanding during the jury selection process to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure that the trial can proceed in a timely manner.
STRATEGY
Section 640(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a mechanism for ensuring that challenges to jurors are decided impartially and efficiently. The provision authorizes a court to discharge jurors who are unable to agree on whether a ground of challenge is true and to replace them with a new set of jurors. This section can be an important strategic tool in criminal trials, as it allows counsel to challenge jurors who may be biased or otherwise unsuitable to serve on a jury. One strategy that counsel may employ when dealing with Section 640(4) is to carefully prepare their challenges to jurors. In order to make the most effective use of this provision, counsel must be able to articulate clear, specific grounds for challenging a particular juror. These grounds may include, for example, the juror's relationship to a party or witness in the case, their prior involvement with similar cases, or their personal beliefs or biases. Another important strategic consideration when dealing with Section 640(4) is timing. Counsel must be aware of the statutory timelines for challenging jurors and must act promptly to ensure that their challenges are heard in a timely manner. They may also need to consider the strategic implications of challenging a juror early in the trial versus later on, as this can affect the composition of the remaining jury and the dynamics of the trial. Once a challenge to a juror has been made, counsel may employ a range of strategies to persuade the court and the remaining jurors of the validity of their challenge. These strategies may include presenting evidence or argumentation to support their challenge, cross-examining the challenged juror or other witnesses, and appealing to the judge's discretion in deciding whether to discharge the jurors and replace them with a new panel. Ultimately, the use of Section 640(4) is just one tool available to counsel in ensuring a fair and impartial jury. Other strategies may include carefully selecting jurors during voir dire, presenting compelling evidence and arguments at trial, and appealing to the judge's discretion in any relevant matters that arise during the trial. By being strategic and thoughtful in the use of these tools, counsel can help to ensure that their clients receive a fair trial and a just outcome.