LONDON, Ont. – By all accounts, she was a lovely woman, adored by friends and admired by co-workers.
She was the one everyone counted on to help organize the Christmas parties and the children’s get-togethers at her office. The first one to offer a shoulder to a friend in need.
Those who knew her called her vivacious, happy, sociable and a terrific mom. A woman who could light up a room.
She was the last person anyone thought would take her own life.
Feel like you need some help and want someone to speak with?
Call the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention at 204-784-4073, contact a local crisis centre or call Kids Help Phone at 1-800-668-6868 or reach out online at kidshelpphone.ca
At the London courthouse, she was just another juror among the 12 who listened to the horrifying evidence about the death of Baby Ryker Daponte-Michaud in a case that ended in mistrial this week. She would walk in and out of the courtroom with the other jurors with dignity and grace.
Once, she noticeably flinched and wouldn’t look when first shown the terrible photographs of the dead child, a reaction that wasn’t unexpected.
The trial abruptly ended without a verdict Monday after the boy’s mother, accused Amanda Dumont, 30, couldn’t continue after having her appendix removed.
And by Wednesday, the juror was gone.
There’s no sure way of knowing if and how much of the troubling evidence presented at the three-week trial, about the toddler who died after he was scalded with boiling instant coffee, contributed to her suicide.
But her death, mourned by so many, has once again raised the issues surrounding graphic criminal trials and vicarious trauma.
Just last month, a juror from the Michael Rafferty murder trial in the death of Woodstock school girl, eight-year-old Victoria Stafford, came forward to discuss her battle with post-traumatic stress disorder.
She was about to take her case for compensation to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s highest court, before Ontario’s attorney general promised help for traumatized jurors starting in January.
One of the defence lawyers at the Baby Ryker trial said he wishes more would be done to screen jurors in cases with graphic evidence before the evidence begins and that counselling could be automatic at the end of troubling cases.
During jury selection, the jury panel was told as a group that the case was about a dead child and the evidence would be troubling. If their number was drawn, they could raise concerns with the judge.
The evidence included photos of the dead child with his horrible third-degree burns to his waist, genitals, upper legs, buttock and back exposed. They also heard the child suffered for at least three days before he died of complications from the burns, and that he was never taken for any medical attention.
“I don’t think that does justice to what they went through for three weeks,” said Greg Leslie, who represented Dumont’s co-accused Scott Bakker, 27. “Our system has to treat potential jurors better.”
Dumont and Bakker pleaded not guilty to a joint charge of criminal negligence causing death in separate charges of failing to provide the necessaries of life.
Leslie, who said he was shocked and saddened by the juror’s death, suggested the potential jurors needed a thorough vetting by the lawyers about their ability to handle disturbing images and evidence about a dead child.
“People just don’t know what they are getting into. They are not doing this voluntarily. This is their civic duty,” he said.
If the judge, Crown and defence lawyers recognize the evidence is disturbing, Leslie said more care needs to be put into the jury selection process.
The jury was told several times during the trial and after the mistrial that there was counseling available if they believed they needed it.
Leslie suggested the onus shouldn’t be put on the jurors to reach out for help, but that mental health support should be built into the process.
“Sometimes people feel they are strong enough to deal with it,” Leslie said, adding he’d be surprised if any of the jurors contacted a counsellor.
And jurors, who are told they’re not to discuss the case, should be assured they can discuss it confidentially with a counselor.
London psychologist Peter Jaffe, academic director of the Centre for Research & Education on Violence against Women and Children at Althouse College at Western University, agreed.
“Some cases are going to be so difficult, you shouldn’t have to volunteer for counselling or announce you need counselling. It should be legitimized by building it into the system.
“Certainly, in a situation such as this one, that you know at the outset you’re going to be exposed to graphic images (and) it’s going to be difficult material . . . it should be built into the system,” he said.
Our system has to treat potential jurors better.
Jaffe said jurors should be debriefed and made aware of things they may experience after a trial.
“I think they need access counseling and easy access if they want to follow up.”
He added that every juror will handle the situation differently. “The bottom line is 10 people may have 10 different reactions depending on what else is happening in their life and what history they bring to the jury box.”
Leslie pointed out the mistrial jury never got a chance to finish the job it was asked to do, which he said would have left them without proper finality. “Their responsibility was to come to that final outcome and that has been taken away from them.”
It makes the juror’s death, if it could be, even more tragic.
“I could not have imagined that would happen,” Leslie said.
No comments:
Post a Comment