“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, will you please try once again”
Mégantic jury at an impasse
Day six of deliberations at the Lac Mégantic Criminal Negligence Trial in Sherbrooke brought with it a jury at an impasse. One day after returning to the courtroom for the first time to ask questions of clarification, the 12-member jury sent word mid-afternoon on Tuesday that they could not come to a consensus regarding verdicts and asked for guidance from Judge Gaetan Dumas.
“You have reported that you are having difficulty reaching a verdict,” Judge Dumas said. “It is not mandatory, but obviously desireable, that you do so.”
The judge pointed out that he does have the power to excuse a jury that has reached a stalemate, but emphasized that he would not use such a power without careful consideration.
“Often when we give juries more time to deliberate they are able to come up with a verdict,” Dumas said, stressing the fact that he was not sending the
jury back to their discussions with the intent that anyone should change their minds, but rather to ensure that every member of the jury had made his or her best effort to come to a just conclusion based on the evidence presented over the course of the four-month trial. He recognized that keeping the jury sequestered longer if they have reached a true impasse would be useless, but strongly encouraged the jurors to take more time and go back to discussions with an open mind.
Dumas also warned against the temptation to change one’s mind in order to reach a consensus. He reminded the jury of the oath each member swore at the beginning of the trial to “return a true verdict according to the evidence”.
“You must not give in to any such temptation,” the judge said, adding that there is nothing wrong with an impasse as long as the matter has been given due consideration by all.
“There are some cases, perhaps this is one, where jurors simply cannot come to a unanimous decision,” Dumas said before asking, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, will you please try once again to reach a verdict?”
Following the brief court session Charles Shearson, one of the lawyers defending Train conductor and engineer Thomas Harding, took questions from local and national media on the development.
“We certainly would have liked a unanimous verdict, but an impasse is always a worry when you have a trial in front of jury,” Shearson said. “It is never desirable to have an impasse, but it is a reality, particularly in cases that involve complex legal concepts.”
The lawyer noted that the questions brought to the judge by the jury on Monday likely represented an effort to come to a consensus, but he said that given the length and complexity of the trial, it is hard to say whether the long deliberation is a good sign or not for his client.
“We are anxious to see the trial come to an end,” Shearson said.
Harding stands accused, along with operations manager Jean Demaître, and railway traffic controller Richard Labrie, of criminal negligence causing death. Harding also faces the possible lesser charges of dangerous operation of railway equipment causing death or dangerous operation of railway equipment. The charges stem from the derailment and explosion of a train carrying crude oil on the night of July 6, 2013 in Lac-mégantic, which resulted in the death of 47 people.