Rules of Evidence: Who's Who In the Courtroom?
Chapter 1: Who's Who In the Courtroom?
This chapter introduces the fundamental structure of the courtroom under the Canadian legal system, focusing on the roles of legal professionals, the division of labor between judges and juries, and the mechanisms used to manage evidence.
Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of this chapter, students should be able to:
Demonstrate an understanding of the adversarial system and the specific role that evidence plays within that framework.
Demonstrate an understanding of the roles of the judge and the jury, including the distinct division of their respective responsibilities.
Demonstrate an understanding of the function of the voir dire and the charge to the jury within the broader context of the trial process.
Overview of the Criminal and Civil Litigation Processes
The litigation process, whether criminal or civil, is governed by specific procedural rules that dictate how a case begins and how information is exchanged before it reaches a courtroom.
Initiation of the Process
In both processes, a specific court document is required to initiate the legal action:
Criminal Litigation: The process begins with the laying of information.
Civil Litigation: The process requires completing the necessary documentation as prescribed by the rules of the court, such as a Statement of Claim.
Pre-Trial Evidence Sharing
Parties in both systems are required to share evidence before the start of the trial. This requirement is intended to expedite the legal process and promote settlements between the parties. The terminology for this exchange differs between the two systems:
Disclosure: The term used for the sharing of evidence in the criminal process.
Discovery: The term used for the sharing of evidence in civil litigation.
The Adversarial System and the Role of Evidence
The Nature of the Adversarial System
The adversarial system is a judicial process characterized by two or more parties presenting their evidence before an impartial decision-maker. This decision-maker then renders a decision based on the evidence and arguments presented.
This stands in direct contrast to the inquisitorial system, where a fact-finder (often a judge or magistrate) takes an active role in investigating the case.
Objectives of the Adversarial System
The adversarial system tempers the "quest for truth" by prioritizing other legal values:
Limiting the power of the state to prosecute individuals.
Emphasizing the appearance of fairness and impartiality, ensuring that the process is respected by the public.
How Evidence Fits into the System
Historically, justice was sought through crude methods such as trial by ordeal. Modern systems have replaced these with concepts of rationality, focusing on:
Relevance: Whether the evidence relates to the matter at hand.
Materiality: Whether the evidence is significant to the outcome of the case.
Primary Function of Evidence Law: To ensure that information placed before the decision-maker is useful and reliable. Like the adversarial system itself, evidence law is constantly evolving to meet contemporary standards of justice.
Division of Responsibilities: Trier of Law and Trier of Fact
A critical component of the adversarial system is the separation of duties regarding the facts and the law.
The Trier of Law
In a jury trial, the judge serves as the trier of law. Their responsibilities include:
Controlling the trial process and maintaining order.
Determining the admissibility of evidence.
Instructing the trier of fact on the applicable law.
The Trier of Fact
In a jury trial, the jury serves as the trier of fact. Their responsibilities include:
Assessing the evidence presented.
Determining what the facts of the case are.
Applying the law (as explained by the judge) to those facts to render a verdict.
The Voir Dire and the Charge to the Jury
Voir Dire
A voir dire is a "mini-trial" held within a trial. Its primary purpose is to determine the admissibility of evidence in the absence of the jury.
Function: It is a safeguard designed to keep potentially prejudicial or inadmissible information from being wrongly considered by a jury.
Process: The jury is excluded from the courtroom and does not hear the information until the judge determines whether it qualifies as admissible evidence.
Judge-Alone Trials: In cases where there is no jury, the judge still conducts a voir dire. If they rule information inadmissible, they must legally "forget" or disregard that evidence and ensure it does not influence their final decision.
Charge to the Jury
The charge to the jury consists of the judge's formal instructions given after all evidence has been presented but before the jury begins deliberations. These instructions must include:
The applicable law relevant to the case.
The standard of proof that must be met (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt).
The available defences the jury can consider.
In the case of R v Osolin, the importance of the jury system was noted: "One of the reasons [the jury system] has functioned so very well is that trial judges have been able to direct the minds of jurors to the essential elements of the offence and to those defences which are applicable."
Commentary on the Jury System
Proposed Reforms and Risks
There have been suggestions to reform the jury system, such as reducing the size of juries or allowing for majority verdicts (rather than unanimous ones). However, critics argue these changes could potentially increase the frequency of wrongful convictions.
Peremptory Challenges
Until recently, the jury selection process included peremptory challenges.
Definition: These allowed lawyers to exclude potential jurors without providing a specific reason.
Abolition: In 2019, the Parliament of Canada abolished peremptory challenges because they were found to lead to discrimination and a lack of diversity in jury selection.