Posted at 4:43 p.m.
February 2020. Selwin Georges Chin argues with a man, Mark Jackson, in front of a hair salon in Montreal's Saint-Laurent district. Their conflict is filmed by a surveillance camera. Suddenly Selwin Georges Chin pulls out his pistol and shoots the victim. A jury found him guilty of first-degree murder after his trial last October. He was therefore sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years.
What there is to know
- Selwin Georges Chin was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Mark Jackson last October.
- Three jurors said they experienced “pressure” during their deliberations.
- The judge refused to conduct an investigation into the jury's deliberations.
But in the weeks after the verdict was announced, three jurors wrote to Judge Daniel Royer demanding reimbursement for psychological care. However, her letter contained disturbing revelations about her deliberations – a highly secretive move. It is actually a criminal offense if a juror breaks the confidentiality of deliberations.
Selwin's lawyer, Georges Chin, was informed by the judge and immediately called for a post-verdict investigation, an exceptional procedure to resolve the “pressure” that may have been placed on the jury. However, Judge Daniel Royer refused on Friday to get involved in this “fishing trip” by the defense.
The hurdle for a judge to conduct such a post-trial investigation is very high. There must be a crime committed by a juror during deliberations or there must be serious allegations of outside influence on the jury. However, this was not the case here, said the judge.
In their secret letters, the three jurors claim that they were exposed to “pressure” during their deliberations. However, the nature of this pressure is not known. Two jurors also revealed that some jurors had appointments in the days after their deliberations began and were therefore in a hurry to reach a verdict.
“If they felt forced or coerced into making a judgment and are now experiencing mental health issues, that is very serious. “If they were intimidated and threatened to the point where they suffered psychological distress, that is a type of assault,” defense attorney Alan Guttman argued Friday.
According to the judge, the jury's allegations do not support the conclusion that a crime was committed. In addition, the evidence is “thin” [tenuous] regarding jury composition.
The judge reminds that an application for reimbursement for psychological help is “not unusual”.
“The fact that there were three different requests does not mean that what happened in the consultation room was inappropriate. It could also be related to the very difficult circumstances of the crime,” Judge Royer concluded.
In fact, video of the murder was shown to jurors dozens of times during the trial.
Note that only since 2022 has the Canadian Parliament amended the law to allow jurors to disclose the confidentiality of deliberations related to medical or psychological treatment. Previously, a juror was forbidden from telling anyone about it, despite the horror witnessed in some trials.
Furthermore, it was the sheriff – the employee responsible for summoning the jury – who asked the jurors to address their letter to the judge. The jury therefore did not write to the judge on their own initiative.
“It is therefore unlikely that the jury were victims of criminal behavior,” analyzed the judge.
On the other hand, the “regret” that the jurors express in their letters is also part of the secrecy of their deliberations, the judge reminds. “One of the considerations is whether a juror feels constrained [bully] and now regrets his judgment. “A judge may not conduct an investigation based on the dissatisfaction of a juror,” the judge analyzes.
However, this decision does not end the matter. The Quebec Court of Appeal must now decide in a year or two whether a new trial should be held based on these letters or on other grounds.
I Philippe Vallières-Roland and I Geneviève Bélanger represented the public prosecutor.