TORONTO – Jurors within the sexual assault trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard started reviewing hours of testimony Friday night after telling the courtroom they have been nonetheless deadlocked.
The jury initially indicated it was deadlocked Thursday morning and was despatched again to deliberate additional, then returned simply over a day later saying it nonetheless couldn’t agree on “some” of the counts.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts advised them to consider whether or not any additional instruction or proof overview would assist or if they’re at a “genuine impasse.”
“There is no other jury that will ever be in a better position than you to decide this case,” the choose mentioned.
“We know you’ve been working very hard … we expect you’re tired and fed up. But please don’t feel pressure that you need to be done with this by Friday – there is no deadline.”
Jurors got here again about an hour later, asking the courtroom to replay the testimony of each Hoggard and the second complainant referring to their encounter on Nov. 22, 2016. They started listening to a recording of the proof and have been set to proceed Saturday morning.
Hoggard, the lead singer of the band Hedley, has pleaded not responsible to 2 counts of sexual assault inflicting bodily hurt and considered one of sexual interference, a cost that refers back to the sexual touching of somebody beneath 16.
The Crown alleges Hoggard, 37, violently and repeatedly raped a teenage fan and a younger Ottawa girl in separate incidents within the fall of 2016. It additional alleges he groped the teenager after a Hedley present in April 2016, when she was 15.
The defence argues the groping didn’t occur, and each sexual encounters have been consensual. Defence attorneys contend the complainants made up rape allegations to cowl up their embarrassment at having been rejected by Hoggard.
Earlier Friday, jurors sought extra help from the courtroom on how one can use the proof in a cellphone name between Hoggard and the second complainant that was recorded with out her information days after the alleged sexual encounter.
Roberts beforehand advised them the decision might be used to gauge the complainant’s manner and mind-set, and on Friday, they requested for clarification on the authorized definition of “state of mind” and how one can apply it in assessing the decision.
The choose mentioned mind-set is outlined as “beliefs, perceptions, emotions or intention.”
Jurors may, however are usually not required to, infer from the decision that the second complainant was upset, the choose advised them. If they do, they need to then ask themselves what she was upset about, she mentioned.
The Crown alleges the complainant was upset as a result of she had been sexually assaulted, whereas the defence argues it’s as a result of she had been humiliated, Roberts mentioned.
This report by The Canadian Press was first printed June 3, 2022.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION