Yes, propagating misinformation
In regard to my source, well, back when I began my first law degree one of the things we learned to do in criminal law was look in this useful but lengthy book called the Criminal Code of Canada. There are all kinds of useful little tidbits of information in this book about criminal law and criminal procedure. The U.S. also has a number of these books at the state and federal level. You might want to look at them online. You could find some factual information.
If you’re going to engage in statutory interpretation and post it in a public forum, I would suggest you acquire the skills necessary and look at the proper sources of information. Unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, newspapers and John Grisham novels are not accurate.
As for your statements about jury consultants and their effect on trials in the U.S., the only factual statement you've made is that jury consultants exist.
FYI, some small but relevant portions of the Canadian statute.
634. (1) A juror may be challenged peremptorily whether or not the juror has been challenged for cause pursuant to section 638.
Maximum number
(2) Subject to subsections (2.1) to (4), the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to
(a) twenty peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with high treason or first degree murder;
(b) twelve peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence, other than an offence mentioned in paragraph (a), for which the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding five years; or
(c) four peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence that is not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If alternate jurors
(2.1) If the judge makes an order for alternate jurors, the total number of peremptory challenges that the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to is increased by one for each alternate juror.
Where there are multiple counts
(3) Where two or more counts in an indictment are to be tried together, the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled only to the number of peremptory challenges provided in respect of the count for which the greatest number of peremptory challenges is available.
Where there are joint trials
(4) Where two or more accused are to be tried together,
(a) each accused is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges to which the accused would be entitled if tried alone; and
(b) the prosecutor is entitled to the total number of peremptory challenges available to all the accused.
638. (1) A prosecutor or an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that
(a) the name of a juror does not appear on the panel, but no misnomer or misdescription is a ground of challenge where it appears to the court that the description given on the panel sufficiently designates the person referred to;
(b) a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused;
(c) a juror has been convicted of an offence for which he was sentenced to death or to a term of imprisonment exceeding twelve months;
(d) a juror is an alien;
(e) a juror, even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative or other support services provided to the juror under section 627, is physically unable to perform properly the duties of a juror; or
(f) a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or both official languages of Canada, where the accused is required by reason of an order under section 530 to be tried before a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or who speak both official languages of Canada, as the case may be.
640. (1) Where the ground of a challenge is that the name of a juror does not appear on the panel, the issue shall be tried by the judge on the voir dire by the inspection of the panel, and such other evidence as the judge thinks fit to receive.
Other grounds
(2) Where the ground of a challenge is one not mentioned in subsection (1), the two jurors who were last sworn, or if no jurors have then been sworn, two persons present whom the court may appoint for the purpose, shall be sworn to determine whether the ground of challenge is true.
If challenge not sustained, or if sustained
(3) Where the finding, pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) is that the ground of challenge is not true, the juror shall be sworn, but if the finding is that the ground of challenge is true, the juror shall not be sworn.
Marvin,Marvin said:
In regard to my source, well, back when I began my first law degree one of the things we learned to do in criminal law was look in this useful but lengthy book called the Criminal Code of Canada. There are all kinds of useful little tidbits of information in this book about criminal law and criminal procedure. The U.S. also has a number of these books at the state and federal level. You might want to look at them online. You could find some factual information.
If you’re going to engage in statutory interpretation and post it in a public forum, I would suggest you acquire the skills necessary and look at the proper sources of information. Unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, newspapers and John Grisham novels are not accurate.
As for your statements about jury consultants and their effect on trials in the U.S., the only factual statement you've made is that jury consultants exist.
FYI, some small but relevant portions of the Canadian statute.
634. (1) A juror may be challenged peremptorily whether or not the juror has been challenged for cause pursuant to section 638.
Maximum number
(2) Subject to subsections (2.1) to (4), the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to
(a) twenty peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with high treason or first degree murder;
(b) twelve peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence, other than an offence mentioned in paragraph (a), for which the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding five years; or
(c) four peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence that is not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If alternate jurors
(2.1) If the judge makes an order for alternate jurors, the total number of peremptory challenges that the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to is increased by one for each alternate juror.
Where there are multiple counts
(3) Where two or more counts in an indictment are to be tried together, the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled only to the number of peremptory challenges provided in respect of the count for which the greatest number of peremptory challenges is available.
Where there are joint trials
(4) Where two or more accused are to be tried together,
(a) each accused is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges to which the accused would be entitled if tried alone; and
(b) the prosecutor is entitled to the total number of peremptory challenges available to all the accused.
638. (1) A prosecutor or an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that
(a) the name of a juror does not appear on the panel, but no misnomer or misdescription is a ground of challenge where it appears to the court that the description given on the panel sufficiently designates the person referred to;
(b) a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused;
(c) a juror has been convicted of an offence for which he was sentenced to death or to a term of imprisonment exceeding twelve months;
(d) a juror is an alien;
(e) a juror, even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative or other support services provided to the juror under section 627, is physically unable to perform properly the duties of a juror; or
(f) a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or both official languages of Canada, where the accused is required by reason of an order under section 530 to be tried before a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or who speak both official languages of Canada, as the case may be.
640. (1) Where the ground of a challenge is that the name of a juror does not appear on the panel, the issue shall be tried by the judge on the voir dire by the inspection of the panel, and such other evidence as the judge thinks fit to receive.
Other grounds
(2) Where the ground of a challenge is one not mentioned in subsection (1), the two jurors who were last sworn, or if no jurors have then been sworn, two persons present whom the court may appoint for the purpose, shall be sworn to determine whether the ground of challenge is true.
If challenge not sustained, or if sustained
(3) Where the finding, pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) is that the ground of challenge is not true, the juror shall be sworn, but if the finding is that the ground of challenge is true, the juror shall not be sworn.
