Mégantic Jury surfaces with questions
Five days into their deliberations, the jury in the Lac-mégantic Criminal Negligence trial returned to the courtroom for the first time, not with a verdict but a series of questions. Specifically, the eight men and four women charged with judging the facts in the cases of Jean Demaître, Richard Labrie, and Thomas Harding wanted clarification on the definition of the term “reasonable doubt,” as well as on the legal concepts of a “reasonable person” and “reasonable and prudent person.” The jury also requested the use of a dictionary.
Charles Shearson, one of the lawyers representing Harding, said that if nothing else the questions, coming as they do after nearly a week of deliberations, indicate that the members of the jury are looking to do their jobs in a serious and conscientious way.
“Maybe they are looking to consolidate a consensus, but it is very hard to say at this point,” the lawyer said. “It has been a complex trial.”
The Jury has been tasked with coming to three separate and unanimous decisions regarding the guilt of the three accused with regard to the charge of Criminal Negligence causing death. According to Shearson, that charge carries with it a possible sentence of 25 years of jail time although the lawyer was quick to state that any thoughts about verdict and sentencing are purely speculation at this point in time.
For Harding, there is also a possibility that he will be found guilty of the lesser charges of dangerous operation of railway equipment causing death or dangerous operation of railway equipment.