In this case, it is my view that the comments of the juror were sufficiently ambiguous that they could not be taken to raise, of themselves, a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the remaining jurors. As the trial was at the end of its second week and the accused had already completed his evidence in chief and part of his cross-examination, it is highly likely that the jurors had been discussing the evidence to some degree. I would be surprised if they had not been. Such discussion would not likely give rise to a finding of bias in any event: R v. Sidhu, 2004 BCCA 59, (para. 35).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.