What jurors don’t know in the rape trial of singer Jacob Hoggard

The trial of Jacob Hoggard was nearly derailed on the fourth day of hearings, when it was postponed several times due to the pandemic.

This is why Justice Gillian Roberts of the Ontario Superior Court did everything she could to accept the defense and prevent the sudden termination of the trial.

The 37-year-old musician was charged with inappropriate sexual interference with a minor and sexual assault causing harm against both a teenage girl and an adult in the Toronto area in 2016.

At the heart of the matter: the story of the adult complainant at the witness stand. That day, the woman explained to the court that she did not immediately file a police complaint against the actress, as she thought no one would believe that she had been raped. Only my friends believed mehe says.

He then said he had read articles on the Internet about other allegations of the singer’s sexual misconduct.

It is sufficient for the defense to request the dismissal of the proceedings for the procedural defect and for the injury caused to its client.

The crown and defense were agreed upon during the jury selection on the important fact that the prospective jurors learned nothing about the defendant in the media for unbiased reasons.

In Canada, the Criminal Code allows challenges for the causeallowing the Crown or the defense to exclude prospective jurors for specific reasons.

In this case, the 14 jurors selected after a careful selection of parties proved that they had read nothing about Jacob Hoggard in the media.

It was also specified that prosecution witnesses should not mention to the jury any allegations other than those they claim to be victims.

The second complainant, however, was not prepared by the Crown on this subject, according to the defense in which an injustice was committed against his client.

The defense’s objection is strongly disputed in the absence of the jury neutralize woman’s testimony.

In his decision, the judge explained that the dismissal of a trial for procedural error was an extraordinary remedy and that he did not believe that any bias had been inflicted on the accused.

I believe it is possible to correct the shothe said, adding that proper and immediate instruction to the jury should allow them to focus on the plaintiff’s allegations and not on what he learned at that time in the press.

When the jury returned to court, the magistrate asked the jurors to completely ignore this aspect of his testimony.

The trial was saved, but not for long. A technical error will again put in doubt the next day’s hearings on the broadcast of a bad video extract in the courtroom.

A bad video

However, the jury did not know everything about the mistake that occurred in the cross-examination of the second complainant in the witness box on May 11.

The defense showed a video clip of a black-and-white interview with a woman, who says she took a long time to recover from surgery after identifying the defendant.

Plaintiff asserted that she was not the one in this extract, though it was a question at this time of the pleadings to the genital lacerations she said she suffered after the alleged rape on Nov. 22, 2016.

The voices in both video clips were altered, but the black and white clip sounded like a male voice.

Later, the court realized the error and the difference between the two extracts.

However, the complainant’s statement caused confusion in court, so the correct excerpt from the interview given by the complainant to the CBC, colored in this instance, was presented in court.

Unusual reasons

The judge then had to apologize to the jury two days later and show them new instructions to clarify that the citation had absolutely nothing to do with this trial.

The Crown and the defense took a day to properly write the correction to be presented to the jurors, to the satisfaction of the parties.

However, the jury did not know that the man referred to in the bad video was ultimately Jacob Hoggard and the woman was a third plaintiff who never filed a police report against the singer, unlike the two.

The CBC even wrote an article about him (New window) in March 2018 [en anglais seulement].

The fact remains that the disclosure of the testimony of the third complainant at the singer’s trial was detrimental to the accused, even though the judge carefully warned the jury not to speculate on possible other allegations. of sexual misconduct against the singer.

Article 276 of the code

Another intense moment that caught the jury’s attention occurred when the defense wanted to know more about the sexual preferences of the second complainant during his cross-examination.

It is important to know what kind of relationship the complainant and my client have agreed upon before meeting at a hotel in Toronto.explained attorney Megan Savard.

Me Savard wanted to use the exact words the woman would use about their planned sexual activities at the time to show that the relationship was consensual.

According to Jacob Hoggard, the complainant sent him two text messages before he was seen in Toronto.

At first, he would have told her: I want you to f *** the sh ** out of me [Je veux que tu me baises de façon sauvage, traduction libre]. In the second, he would have written to her: I have to clean before getting dirty [Mieux vaut se laver avant de passer aux choses salaces, traduction libre].

The defense indicated that it was possible that the second complainant and the defendant exchanged information about very specific consensual sexual acts.

The more information we have about it, the more we will know the boundaries they agreed on before they met.referred to Me Savard.

The judge, at the Crown’s insistence, dismissed these alleged text messages, citing section 276 of the Criminal Code.

This section prohibits the Crown or the defense from presenting evidence of the complainant’s sexual activity that is not part of an offense on the grounds that it can be used to make inferences relating to the preferences of the alleged victim in matters of gender.

This rule of exclusion thus makes it possible to avoid the promotion of the idea that a complainant consented to the sexual activity that the source of the accusation involves.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on the constitutionality of section 276.

Incompatible rights

Section 276 considers the rights of an accused to defend themselves at trial against Crown allegations against alleged victims of sexual assault in privacy with respect to past sexual activity. .

The Crown argued that it did not matter what kind of relationship the woman and the accused had agreed to before meeting in Toronto in November 2016.

He said the woman’s sexual preferences were not related to this trial. It is necessary to protect the sexual history of the complainantraised prosecutor Jill Witkin.

Mr. added. Witkin that it would be extremely unfair to mention the woman’s past sexual activities.

In the same vein, he said it was unreasonable to show the jury the two masturbation videos sent by the accused to the plaintiffs without prejudice to him.

You don’t have to see themhe said, and added that both sides acknowledged the existence of two recordings in the joint statement of facts at the beginning of the hearings.

The judge agreed with the Crown, but he was confused by the defense’s claim about the article he was challenging.

I didn’t expect this at the beginning of this testhe admitted, however, reminded Me Savard of that Article 276 was written exactly to avoid situations like this.

The Crown suggested to the judge that Me Savard could examine the woman on the frequency of their communication with a sexual nature prior to their meeting, but avoid asking her any questions about her sexual passions.

In his right to respond, Me Savard failed to convince the magistrate, saying it was important to know the explicit language of the plaintiff in his dealings with the accused as against general sentence about their passion.

In this trial, the judge also had a problem with Me Savard and he did not refrain from showing his anger against the defense attorney.

He would often ask her to lower her tone or relax the confrontational atmosphere provoked by the defensive arguments in their exchanges.

The magistrate even had to dismiss the accused’s wife one day in the absence of the jury, warning him to stop nodding negatively in the courtroom during Mr.’s objections. Witkin.

Clearly disagreeing with the Crown’s position, Rebecca Asselstine did not hesitate to show her disapproval of the assistance. The judge told him from that podium [son] careless nod of the head [la] naaabala.

It was also decided to let the jurors vote, but accompanied by a court official, if the jury had not already returned the verdict on the day of the June 2 general election in Ontario.