A juror recounts his experience at the trial of Marc-André Grenon

As jurors, 14 citizens spent more than a month living to the rhythm of the trial of murderer Marc-André Grenon. These ordinary citizens were randomly selected and then required to serve the justice system. Radio-Canada met one of them.

Open in full screen mode

A sketch of the jury at the trial of Marc-André Grenon.

Radio-Canada

The speech synthesis, based on artificial intelligence, allows you to generate spoken text from written text.

“Happy” to have been chosen, the juror who agreed to grant us an interview takes us into his daily life at the courthouse.

The deliberation process must remain secret under the Criminal Code. No element relating to it is therefore discussed in the context of this interview.

Before being summoned for jury selection, had you ever set foot in a courthouse?

< p class="StyledBodyHtmlParagraph-sc-48221190-4 hnvfyV">Yes. I had already been involved in a case that was more civil. In fact, he was a member of an organization who was suing the organization for being expelled.

Could you describe to me your state of mind when you were chosen to be part of the jury?

LoadingInflation continues to decline in Canada and stood at 2.8% in February

Inflation continues to decline in Canada and stood at 2.8% in February

ELSE ON INFO: Inflation continues to fall in Canada and stood at 2 .8% in FebruaryLoadingInflation continues to decline in Canada and stood at 2.8% in February

Inflation continues to decline in Canada and stood at 2.8% in February

ELSEWHERE ON NEWS: Inflation continues to decline in Canada and stood at 2.8% in February

I was happy . I have always loved legal shows, investigative shows and detective shows. I always liked it.

Maybe it allowed me to get my foot in the door in this field – there, in this universe. I was very happy, very content. I put my identity aside. It is peers from society who are brought together to judge evidence.

It's like a cloak that we put on. I leave my identity aside and become the representative of the company.

In fact, were you aware that the trial was going to last more than a month and that you were going to have to be available to the court throughout this period?

Right away, we don't ;we weren't. In fact, we found out during jury selection day, January 15. That's when the judge told us the trial would last five to six weeks. I was very determined. I had no problem with that aspect.

Initially, is there a court officer present specifically to inform you of your role and to explain to you how the procedure will take place?

In fact, it is certain that we always had special constables who were with us to ensure our safety, that the whole process was legal and was strict. We always had two special constables with us throughout the trial. The same ones throughout the trial, in fact. So, these special constables accompanied us at all times, outside the courthouse, because, on occasion, we would go out to dinner at a restaurant. Some of my fellow jurors were smokers, so had to leave the building, given that it is a public building. They were always accompanied. One constable accompanied them to smoke while the other stayed with the rest of the jury.

Open in full screen mode

A sketch of the judge François Huot who presided over the trial of Marc-André Grenon at the Chicoutimi courthouse.

It was always, always, always being watched. And when we left our deliberation room, we could not talk at all about the trial or anything that had been discussed during the day or during the trial. It was really very strict. Then, even when the door to the room was open, we couldn't talk when one of our jurors was in the toilet, we couldn't talk about the trial either. We really all had to be on the same footing in terms of knowledge of the cause to ensure that the cause was ultimately fair. Otherwise, it was the judge who guided us through the entire process of carrying out our task as jurors.

The trial was long. It was your duty to be there from start to finish. Could you tell me about the impact your experience has had on your personal and professional life?

Being single, I didn't have too much to answer to anyone, in fact, but I know that my other fellow jurors had a little adjustment to make with their family. This is very normal too. On the professional side, it is certain that I had to come to an agreement with my employer to be absent. There was no major impact on that side.

Financially, we still had an amount allocated to us.

What was the daily schedule like?

We had to be at the courthouse by 9 a.m. The hearing started at 9:30 a.m. We always had a break around 10:30 a.m. and resumed immediately afterwards. Then dinner was from 12:30 until 2 p.m. and ended around 4:30, I think.

It happened once it overflowed more than that, because there was a testimony that was ending.

As we often see trial sequences in the cinema or on television, the public has an idea of ​​what it takes place in a courtroom. Is there a big difference between fiction and reality?

Yes, there is a very big difference, and that is speed. The trial is very slow. And we understand, when we attend a trial, that the judge must ensure that the rules of law are respected, that the lawyers do not go too far, that the jury does not hear things that it does not understand. #x27;he must not hear. The role of the jury is to ensure that the evidence is tangible. Does what the ministry presents hold up? Basically, that's it. So, it's very slow what we see in films, in TV series, let's say, it's sent directly to the essential. They take away a lot of things that are very slow.

The trial is very slow. […] In TV series, let's say, it's sent straight to the point.

I used to listen to the series CSI, and the experts there were Miami, Las Vegas and New York. We saw the murder. At the beginning, we saw the investigation taking its course, three days later, it was completed, the criminal was in prison, et cetera. This isn't how it works at all, so it's really timeouts at all stages.

So in fact, in gathering evidence, in the legal process, lawyers go out of their way to avoid leading witnesses to disclose something they don't say on their own so as not to guide or influence the witnesses, it's very thorough, it's very strict. Then, I tell you, there were interruptions. The jurors, we cannot hear everything, because the rules of law that the judge discusses with the lawyers, very often, they can disclose things. So jurors are called out very frequently during the trial.

In a day, we could go out maybe 10 to 15 times, go back to our room, come back five minutes later. Sometimes, the non-jury [discussions] dragged on, so we took a break or went to dinner, after that it was very long, but ultimately we understand why they do that. This is to ensure that the trial is fair for the accused. They take us out to settle legal issues and then we go back. There is a lot of in and out of the courtroom for the jurors.

Has this experience changed your perception of the legal world?

Absolutely yes, it changed my perception a lot. I was not aware of the full extent of what was behind the legal proceedings. Very often, we see a very small article in the newspapers, we see that the jury has returned the verdict or that the case is being appealed.

We don't see what exactly this implies. So yes, it profoundly changed everything that the legal world can involve, in fact.

And from now on, will you follow judicial news differently?

Ah yes, absolutely! I'll probably find it more interesting and I'll also know a little more about what's going on behind closed doors that we can't see.

Based on an interview with Frédéric Tremblay, host of It's never the same