Case Study .. Civics Homework?

Question by mystery: Case Study .. Civics Homework?
Can you please explain to me what’s it saying in a dumb form ?
Case Study #1 —
R. V. Brown (2002) 57 O.R. (3d) 615

Decovan Brown, a young black man, was driving a Ford Expedition on the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto. Before being stopped, he was traveling slightly in excess of the posted speed limit. Traffic was moderate. Speeding is common on this highway. He was dressed in an athletic suit and baseball cap. He was polite and courteous to the police and cooperated in providing breath samples. He was charged with impaired driving “over 80.”

At trial, defence counsel brought an application to exclude the results of the breathalyzer test, arguing that Mr. Brown had been arbitrarily stopped as a result of racial profiling. The supporting evidence included the fact that the police had begun a vehicle registration check prior to stopping the car. In the course of defence counsel’s submissions, the judge described the allegations as “nasty” and “malicious” and commented on the lack of tension and hostility between the accused and the arresting officer. The trial judge dismissed the application without calling for submissions from the Crown. The accused was convicted. During sentencing, the trial judge referred to “distaste for the matters raised during trial” and suggested that an apology be given to the arresting officer. The accused appealed.

Case Study #4 —
R. V. Barnes [1999] O.J. No. 3296 (Ont. C.A.)

The accused, a black Jamaican male, was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possession of the proceeds of crime. The trial judge did not allow certain questions to be asked of prospective jurors which would have alerted them to the accused’s nationality, the nature of the crime, or whether they would be more likely to believe a police officer; however, the trial judge did allow jurors to be asked whether their ability to judge the evidence without bias or prejudice would be affected by the fact that the accused was black. The trial judge accepted that within Metropolitan Toronto there exists a widespread prejudice about people of West Indian origin which suggests that they are more likely to commit crimes than people of other origins. However, the judge believed that the potential prejudice arising from this could be overcome by proper instructions to the jury and by jury dynamics.
1 hour ago – 4 days left to answer.

Best answer:

Answer by casimirforce
R v Brown:

A black male was stopped by police for speeding on a highway where speeding is common. When asked, the male gave a breathalyzer sample. The police charged him with driving while impaired and going over 80.

In court, his defense attorney argued that the breath test results should not be allowed in evidence. (This would leave the Crown with only evidence of their observations of his driving and his demeanor when stopped – making the Crown’s case a little more shaky.) Defense counsel argued that the client’s traffic stop was not made because the police suspected him of drunk driving; instead, the police stopped him because he was black. Race, unsupported by other evidence, is an unlawful reason to detain someone. The judge ruled that defense counsel was making “nasty” and “malicious” accusations against the officer, and denied the application. He did not require the Crown to justify the officer’s conduct. (It was the Crown’s obligation to claim that this was NOT racial profiling. The judge improperly did the Crown’s work for them and made a ruling on evidence based on his own bias, not on the facts before him.)

The defendant was convicted. At sentencing the judge “suggested” that the defense counsel owed the arresting officer an apology for claiming that he unlawfully racially profiled the defendant. The defendant has appealed his conviction.

R. v. Barnes:
Both the defense and the Crown are permitted to ask the potential jurors questions designed to uncover bias which would make the Crown’s job easier than legally required. The judge agreed that in the geographical area there was a pervasive stereotype that West Indian people are more likely than other “groups” to commit crimes. Clearly the defense attorney, and maybe even the Crown’s attorney, wanted to ask the prospective jurors whether they held these preconceived prejudices to a degree that they would use the stereotype as a factor in deciding innocence or guilt. This would be an improper consideration because it was not based on the evidence before them, and could make them close their ears to defense evidence.

The judge did allow questions about the defendant’s race, however.

On denial of the attorneys’ request for more in-depth voir dire, the judge said that any prejudice the jurors brought into the trial could be “cured” by his instructions to them at the conclusion of the evidence and by them “policing” each other in the jury room (“jury dynamics”).

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!