Gerald Stanley verdict – was it the jury’s fault?

 

By Brittany Da Silva

 

Gerald Stanley was found not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of Colten Boushie, as determined by a jury on February 9, 2018. Colten Boushie was fatally shot by Gerald Stanley in August 2016 on Stanley’s farm, located near Biggar, Saskatchewan. Boushie was a 22-year-old Cree man and a member of the Red Pheasant First Nation reserve, details that are currently at the center of the controversy surrounding this case.

 

The current jury selection process in Canada is now under review in the aftermath of this case, as there was no Indigenous representation among the chosen jurors. There were five potential jurors who appeared to be Indigenous but were not chosen to take part in the final jury that was to oversee the two-week trial. Various sources have cited “peremptory challenges” as the reason why these candidates were ultimately not chosen to take part.

 

Canada’s Criminal Code allows defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors to exclude people from a jury without giving any reason by citing “peremptory challenges.” The fear is that this policy can potentially lead to discrimination against potential jurors. While any well-represented jury should be a jury of your peers, this did not happen during the Stanley v. Boushie trial. In this case, peremptory challenges might have led to a jury that was biased or had little to no understanding of Indigenous culture and social norms. Despite the fact that Boushie was Indigenous, he was not represented within the jury that was chosen.

 

Critics state that the jury was stacked in Stanley’s favour, as every Indigenous candidate was challenged and ultimately dismissed, resulting in an all-white panel. In light of this case, the Liberal government is considering making changes to the criminal justice system and the jury selection process. CBC News reports that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself weighed in on the issue, stating that the government will take steps to address “systemic issues”.

 

Others believe that the jury selection process should remain “random” rather than making it mandatory to include at least one Indigenous individual. These critics fear that deliberately including Indigenous people in a chosen jury might introduce racism or bias into the selection process. Yet the issue still stands. It is easy to see that this case was problematic from the start – a white man who shot and killed an Indigenous man was granted an all-white jury. That jury ultimately determined that the white man was not guilty of second-degree murder. It’s difficult to determine exactly what the next step should be, but something has to be done to prevent the same issue from impeding the justice system in the future.