What we know about the mistrial in the case against the former world junior hockey players

Former NHL players Cal Foote, Dillon Dubé, Alex Formenton, Michael McLeod and Carter Hart, accused in a sexual assault following the World Junior Hockey Championships in 2018, arrive at the courthouse in London, Ont, on April 23.The Globe and Mail/The Canadian Press  

Why were the reasons for the mistrial not made public?

Publication bans are standard at various points in the judicial process – bail hearings, preliminary hearings and trials. In jury trials, there is a type of publication ban that always applies: anything said outside the presence of the jury cannot be reported during the trial. Instead, news outlets must wait until the jury retires to consider its verdict. Such a ban is in place at the sexual assault trial in London.

The public will know all the details eventually, but during the court proceedings the publication ban is designed to shield the jury’s views from being contaminated by inadmissible information.

Publication bans also ensure that “the case isn’t tried in the public sphere,” Mr. Caramanna added.

How could they have found impartial new jurors considering all the publicity?

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an accused has the right to be heard by an “independent and impartial tribunal.”

However, being impartial doesn’t necessarily mean being uninformed. “We don’t expect the jurors necessarily to come into a case without any knowledge whatsoever,” Mr. Caramanna said.

Jury candidates are instead required to have no preconceptions or favouritism towards either the Crown or the defence, Mr. Martin said.

In some situations where the accused have been the object of abundant media coverage, it is impossible to find people who aren’t aware of the case.

In 2002 and 2003 in Quebec, for example, members of the Hells Angels were defendants in two mega-trials in the wake of a turf war between biker gangs that monopolized media attention in the province. In addition, the jury selection in 2002 took place at the same time that the Hells Angels leader Maurice (Mom) Boucher was on trial for murder.

Most jury candidates knew about the bikers and during selection were asked instead whether they would be able to set aside any preconceived opinions and judge individual defendants solely on the evidence introduced in court, said Jean-Claude Boyer, a former prosecutor who was involved in those organized-crime trials.