Accused killer wants rules changed to allow native jurors with records
Thu Aug 24 2006
By Mike McIntyre
WINNIPEG FREE PRESS ARCHIVES
Sydney Teerhuis says current jury selection process is a violation of his charter rights.
A man accused of a grisly dismemberment killing has put Manitoba’s jury system on trial with a unique legal challenge that claims native people are being unfairly discriminated against.
Sydney Teerhuis, 34, says the jury selection process doesn’t allow for a true representation of the public to hear a criminal case and is a violation of his Charter rights.
Teerhuis, who is native, is seeking a true “jury of his peers” in the form of a largely aboriginal panel to hear his high-profile case.
One of Teerhuis’ main arguments is that aboriginals are unfairly being precluded from jury duty because of a stipulation prospective jurors can’t have criminal records.
Teerhuis cites statistics that show 61 per cent of people who are incarcerated are native.
Excluded
“There are a large number of aboriginal people being excluded from jury selection based on that provision. It does affect the representativeness of the jury,” defence lawyer Kathleen Fotheringham argued in court earlier this month.
Defence lawyer Greg Brodsky is also fighting the motion on Teerhuis’ behalf and claims justice officials have created a system where the only people who are being selected for jury duty are “the elderly and the unemployed”.
“You may be getting a jury which is unbiased, these 70-year-old unemployed people and homemakers, but you’re not going to get a jury that is representative of the community,” said Brodsky.
“The process just doesn’t work.”
Jury co-ordinator Gail Hildebrand was forced to give evidence earlier this month and told court that about 1,600 jury notices were sent out in anticipation of the Teerhuis trial, which was set to begin in early September.
She said the list of names was randomly generated through provincial health records and didn’t know how many people were native.
Hildebrand said more than 1,400 of those who received notices were excused from the panel for various reasons, including health, work duties and other commitments that could affect them financially.
Only 189 people were left — with 13 of those being disqualified for having criminal records. The remaining 176 were expected to come to court next month where Crown and defence lawyers would then select the 12 who would hear the trial.
“The threshold to get off a jury panel is far too low,” said Brodsky, who also took issue with the fact jury officials simply took people at their word and didn’t require written declarations.
“That gives the impression justice isn’t being done and we don’t have procedural fairness.”
Crown attorney Deborah Carlson said there is no evidence anything improper has occurred when dismissing prospective jurors because of perceived hardships.
“The issue here isn’t whether (jury officials) are running the tight ship that Mr. Brodsky would run in determining what is a hardship to a person,” she said.
“There’s no evidence anything untoward has occurred or a panel has not been randomly chosen. The key word here is fairness, not perfection.”
Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Marc Monnin presided over the motion and has reserved his decision, which has forced an indefinite delay of Teerhuis’ trial.
“He doesn’t care if his trial is delayed. He wants a fair trial before a representative jury. If he has to sit and wait for it, he will,” said Brodsky.
He claims the motion is unique in Canada and would have far-reaching implications about the way juries are selected if successful.
Monnin questioned Brodsky in court about the reason so many people are opting out of jury duty.
“Isn’t that partly because the nature of where our criminal trials are going? They’re going to a far greater length. Jurors aren’t just expected to be here for a few days or a week anymore, but for two, three, six months,” he said.
Monnin also said Teerhuis isn’t allowed to hand-pick a jury of his pleasing.
“He’s entitled to have a jury chosen randomly from a group that represents the community as a whole. That doesn’t mean the end result has to be exactly how the community is comprised,” he said.
Teerhuis is accused of dismembering, beheading and castrating Robin Greene, 38, inside the Royal Albert Arms Hotel in the summer of 2003. Police were led to the body after a man walked into the Public Safety Building and allegedly confessed.
Investigators initially believed they were responding to a prank call and were stunned to find the victim inside the bathtub of a hotel suite. Greene, a Shoal Lake resident visiting the city, had been cut into eight pieces.
Police have been unable to locate some internal organs that had been removed from the victim, and their disposition remains a disturbing mystery.
Police also recovered inside the suite a necklace that had been stolen one day earlier from the set of the Hollywood movie, Shall We Dance?, starring Jennifer Lopez, Susan Sarandon and Richard Gere.
The movie was being filmed in Winnipeg. The $4,000 necklace belonged to Sarandon but played no role in the killing in terms of motive, according to police.
The celebrity link to the gruesome case sparked interest in the United States from gossip magazines, tabloid newspapers and entertainment talk shows.
Greene and his alleged killer weren’t known to each other, but apparently met earlier in the night at a downtown city hotel and agreed to return to the hotel for consensual sex.