Is Crown attorney guilty of stealing juror’s heart?
Drug trial panellist sent notes to prosecutor, prompting inquiry
Ah, unrequited affection.
Heartbreaking in most circumstances, but when it’s from a juror to the Crown attorney in a major drug case, it’s a much more serious matter.
Meet Juror No. 6. Along with 11 others, she was tasked during a recent trial in Brampton with deciding the fates of two men, David Igbinoba and Ewah Godwin, who were charged with heroin offences. The men were found guilty June 20. But the story doesn’t end there. Just two days after the verdict was delivered, Juror No. 6 — whose identity, like all jurors, is kept top secret — sent a handwritten note to Crown attorney Robert Johnston, who is married, which contained her phone number and passages that included: “I really wanted to thank you in person for choosing me to be part of the jury.”
Then, in a July 4 email, she wrote: “I absolutely enjoyed you and this experience . . . When you said ‘thank you’ to us after the verdict was read and we were walking away, I wanted to say ‘you’re most welcome’ but honestly, I was so nervous and my stomach was in knots.”
And finally, on July 7: “You just crossed my mind so I thought I would say hi. Have a nice afternoon.”
There was no indication that communication from Juror No. 6 to Johnston took place prior to the verdict.
The passages are included in a notice of application from Godwin’s lawyer, Ehsan Ghebrai, who requested that the judge reconvene the jury prior to sentencing to hold an inquiry into the issue of the appearance of bias.
Superior Court Justice Leonard Ricchetti denied the defence’s request on Dec. 1, and proceeded to sentence Igbinoba, a 48-year-old father of two, to 10 years in prison. Godwin, a 46-year-old father to an 11-year-old daughter, got 11 years.
“I have very little concern that (Juror No. 6’s) ‘feelings’ for the Crown — which were never expressed or acted upon during the trial — unfairly impacted that juror’s verdict or indeed the verdict of the other 11 jurors who unanimously reached their collective decision,” said criminal defence lawyer Edward Prutschi, who was not involved in this case.
“I do, however, have great sympathy with an accused — now convicted — who will forever wonder if he’s sitting in jail because a juror had a crush on the Crown. On the basis of that whiff of impropriety, I could certainly see an appeal having legs to run with.”
Johnston did not return requests for comment. A spokesman for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which handles drug crimes, declined to comment.
Ghebrai told the Star his client is considering his appeal options. He highlighted the fact that because jury deliberations are kept secret, it isn’t possible to review the manner in which the decision was made.
“Where, as here, you have a circumstance where a juror appears to be contacting a party to the litigation immediately after rendering verdict and demonstrating what appears to be some form of partiality, we are left in a state of uncertainty about what, if any, effect that partiality may have had during the course of the deliberations on other jurors,” he said.
“When you said ‘thank you’ to us after the verdict was read and we were walking away, I wanted to say ‘you’re most welcome.’ ” JUROR’S NOTE TO PROSECUTOR
Igbinoba’s lawyer, who did not apply for an inquiry, declined to comment.
Once a verdict is delivered by a jury, it is no longer open to the judge to declare a mistrial based on juror misconduct, criminal defence lawyer Daniel Brown told the Star.
“The only option available to the judge after the verdict was to hold an inquiry so that the conviction could be reviewed by an appellate court,” said Brown, who was not involved with the trial. “In this case, the judge declined to do so.”
Ricchetti said that because there was no communication from the juror during the trial, an inquiry would “seek to explore areas of what occurred prior to the verdict on a ‘feeling’ or ‘emotional’ level.”
Whether or not Juror No. 6 did indeed have feelings for Johnston, the judge said there was no evidence that the other 11 jurors either knew or were impacted by those feelings.