London, Ontario — A high-profile sexual assault trial has turned controversial as allegations emerged against Daniel Brown, a prominent criminal defense lawyer, and his colleague Hilary Dudding. The pair is representing one of the accused players from Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team, facing accusations of misconduct during the trial, which has sparked significant media attention and legal debate.
The issue arose when juror number 11 submitted a note to Justice Maria Carroccia, alleging that Brown and Dudding were “bullying” the jury. The juror claimed that several members felt they were subjected to ridicule by the attorneys, who reportedly laughed and whispered while observing the jury as they entered the courtroom. The juror deemed this behavior as “unprofessional and unacceptable.”
On Friday, Justice Carroccia suspended proceedings, citing concerns over potential bias among jurors. This is not the first time complications have emerged in this case; a previous mistrial was declared in late April after Dudding encountered a juror at a local market, raising concerns about the appropriateness of the interaction. Dudding later stated that her apology at the moment was reflexive.
The trial will now continue with a judge alone, a decision that Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham initially contested, fearing it could undermine the prosecution’s case. The change follows three weeks of evidence presented to a jury, tailored specifically for that format.
Brown has vehemently denied allegations of jury intimidation, and Justice Carroccia further noted that she had not observed any unprofessional behavior in the courtroom. Nevertheless, the accusations have thrust both Brown and Dudding, as well as their firm, Daniel Brown Law, into the media spotlight.
Daniel Brown, recognized as one of Canada’s leading trial lawyers, co-authored a significant legal text on prosecuting and defending sexual assault cases with former Crown attorney Jill Witkin, now a judge. His legal expertise is well-regarded, and he has been a frequent media presence; however, his latest headlines stem from the ongoing trial rather than his legal acumen.
Brown first entered the public eye at age 26, defending a colleague accused of an improper traffic violation, in a case that drew national attention. Over the years, his practice evolved alongside a rise in Toronto’s gang violence, tackling cases involving drugs, robbery, and homicide. Notably, he gained international media coverage in 2013 while defending Mohamed Siad, who filmed then-Mayor Rob Ford allegedly using crack cocaine.
Today, Brown runs a boutique firm in downtown Toronto with approximately a dozen lawyers and has served as president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. His skills have earned him respect from colleagues in the legal field. John Struthers, a past president, praised Brown’s dedication to the justice system.
Struthers expressed skepticism about the claims made by the juror. He pointed out the unlikelihood that defense attorneys would intentionally alienate the jury and suspects outside influences, such as protesting outside the courtroom, could have affected the juror’s perceptions.
Another defense lawyer, Hussein Aly, who has also worked alongside Brown, remarked that misunderstandings can occur in jury dynamics and cited instances from his own experiences. He believes that any perceptions of impropriety may stem from a misinterpretation of standard courtroom interactions.
Justice Carroccia ultimately chose to dismiss the jury entirely, dismissing a request from the Crown to only remove a few jurors. The judge reasoned that probing the jury’s feelings could exacerbate issues of bias. Thus, the case will now proceed without jurors, shifting the foundation of how evidence is evaluated to a judge-alone format.
This ongoing trial continues to develop in an environment rife with media scrutiny, putting both the legal team and the judicial process under the microscope.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.