"Hubris" was based upon a 1995 case in British Columbia. There, a juror, Gillian Guess, fell in love and had
an affair with Parjeet (Peter) Gill, an accused. Gill was later acquitted.
During the trial, Ms. Guess began a romantic relationship with Peter
Gill, one of the defendants.
Ms. Guess and the other jurors were not instructed not to have
contact with the defendants. The
prosecution and the judge were aware during the trial of the
relationship between Ms. Guess and
Mr. Gill.
Subsequent to the conclusion of the Johal trial, Ms. Guess was
charged with obstruction of
justice. The Canadian government claims that Ms. Guess� behavior
constituted obstruction of
justice under � 139(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code. � 139(2) reads
as follows:
Obstructing Justice (2) Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner
other than a manner
described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course
of justice is guilty of an
indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years.
Ms. Guess was tried, found guilty and sentenced to 18 months in
prison. She is now appealing
her case.
The purpose of this website is to explain what the legal bases for
Ms. Guess� appeal would be
under the law of the United States. Canadian law is the law that
actually applies to Ms. Guess�
case.
Second, Mr. Gill�s trial diary, written by him during his trial, was
introduced as evidence against
Ms. Guess in her trial. This evidence may have been improperly
admitted.
Third, Ms. Guess� fellow jurors testified during her trial. This
evidence may have been
improperly admitted.
Fourth, the prosecution in Ms. Guess� case refused to share evidence
with Ms. Guess� attorney.
This may be a violation of the Brady Rule.
Finally, Mr. Gill has not been charged with obstruction of justice
for the affair. Nor has the judge
in Regina v. Johal been charged with obstruction of justice for
failing to act after being informed
of the Guess-Gill relationship. Prosecution of Ms. Guess coupled
with the failure to prosecute
Mr. Gill and the judge may constitute discriminatory prosecution.
Case information courtesy of
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/guessgroup/index.htm