Thread by @ezralevant

I'm in Lethbridge for the long-awaited trial of the Coutts Three, who prosecutors call the "leadership group" of the peaceful protest at the border in 2022. You can follow our journalism at and chip in to the legal defence at .TruckerTrial.com
Coutts3.com

The three men -- Marco Van Huigenbos, Alex Van Herk and George Janzen -- are on trial for mischief. They have chosen a trial by jury. I think it's a good choice -- the common sense of ordinary people is likely more friendly to freedom than an elite, establishment judge.

The jury selection is underway. The first juror has presented to the judge, who asked him a series of questions that (I understand) was agreed to by prosecutors and defence counsel. The first juror is approved.

The first juror was a man, approx. 45 years old. The second juror is a woman, approx. 40 years old. She's being sworn in for her questioning by the judge.

These juror candidates have previously interacted with the lawyers; this is the judge's turn to ask them questions. The judge is Justice Keith Yamauchi.

Third juror candidate. Woman of around 60 years. She's whispering directly to the judge. The judge then says he is going to excuse the juror.

It is an onerous burden to be a juror, of course. You have to take days or weeks out of your life.

The next prospective juror is an approx. 65-year-old man. (He is being sworn in on a Bible.)

"Did Covid-19 have an effect on you?" That's a pointless question, isn't it? It had an effect on all of us -- the disease, perhaps, but more likely the lockdowns. Who would say no?

The judge's main questions to each of the jurors is whether they can have an open mind towards the events at the protest, and all have so far said yes. (Juror 1 said he generally disapproved of their actions, though.)

The next juror walks in. 40 year old man. Each of the jurors walks to the central podium, because they don't know where to go. The judge asks each of them if they want to address him -- they don't, they just don't know where to go. So they rearrange them.

The judge starts his questions with, "do not be offended by the questions". Did Covid-19 have an affect on you?

"It had an impact on everybody," answers the juror. Who could answer differently?

Juror says he had opinions on the blockade "a little on the strong side" but he could set that aside. He says he doesn't have a strong opinion about any of the defendants.

Note, we don't know if he was in favour or opposed to the blockade.

Prosecutor asks the judge about the juror's comment that his opinions were "a little on the strong side". The prosecutor seems worried. A young, white, working man with opinions is demographically likely to be sympathetic to the protesters (I think).

The judge does the prosecutor a favour, and rejects the juror.

Working class white men with opinions have no place on the jury, I guess.

The next juror is brought in. Approx. 65 year old man. Walks to the podium (because no-one is telling these people where to go). He is then escorted to the witness box.

Judge: "did Covid have an impact on you?" Answer: no.

Do you hold a strong opinion about the "Coutts border blockade" -- juror says no.

(My question: is using the word "blockade" in itself partisan?)

Each time, the prosecutor Steven Johnston gets up and corrects a name. Apparently he gave jurors a list of names of possible witnesses and wanted to make sure they didn't have a pre-existing connection to them. He said one name wrong, so he's correcting it for each one of them.

Next up, approx. 30-year-old woman. Judge asks his usual questions. "Did Covid-19 have an impact on your or anyone close to you?" (I'm sorry, that's an absurd question. And, by the way, jurors have said yes and no, and nothing seems to turn on it.)

This prospective juror says she has no strong opinions on any related matters.

Next juror up. A 30-something guy. He says his grandfather died from Covid. But he says he's pretty impartial about things.

Juror escorted out. Defence lawyer Michael Johnston says he's worried about that answer, so did fellow lawyer Ryan Durran. Alan Honner (defence) and Steven Johnston (prosecutor) say they are fine with the juror. The judge proposes a follow-up question.

Defence lawyer Durran speaks for a bit; judge relents, doesn't need a follow-up question. (Frankly, the juror looked sympathetic to me, but who knows.)

Next prospective juror: approx 55-year-old working class man in boots. Goes right up to the judge and speaks to him quietly. I heard the phrase, "next two weeks". Sounds like he's got a work obligation, but I didn't hear more.

Judge excuses him. Too bad for the defendants.

While we're waiting for the next juror, the scene:

1. One judge.

2. Five clerks.

3. Three defendants.

4. Three prosecutors.

5. Four defence lawyers.

6. Two cops.

For a mischief trial.

Next prospective juror brought in. 65 years old, manufacturing worker. (The judge asked him, since it wasn't written down.) Judge asks the usual question about Covid: "I worked through that whole time, I didn't get sick."

So: normal, sane guy. Bad for the prosecution.

Judge asks if he has an opinion about the protest. He says he does have an opinion, but not strongly held and he'll have an open mind. Judge seems to accept that. Prosecutor says he wants to speak to it -- he can tell this is an acquitting juror.

Juror escorted out. Prosecutor Steven Johnston on his feet. Johnston tries to object to the juror because he said his "goal" is to be objective. Judge excuses the juror.

Too bad, I think.

Next prospective juror: 35-year-old man, looks Indigenous. He asks to be excluded. He said something about a plumbing apprenticeship; and then he mentioned a funeral in the extended family. The judge isn't moved.

(I think the other prospective jurors have all been Caucasian.)

Prospective juror says some family members died from Covid-19. He says he's not aware of the Coutts blockade (answering if he has a strong opinion about it.)

No objections from any lawyers; he's on the jury despite his lack of enthusiasm.

Next prospective juror is up (a new Canadian.) He goes to the podium. He says he wants to be excused because he's a paramedic.

The judge excuses him.

Next up is a woman approx. 45 years old smiling from ear to ear. She says she's worried she'll be "a little biased". She's excused right away.

Another prospective juror up, asks to be excused. Judge agrees.

(They have dozens of jurors in the pool. The clerk is pulling out names and numbers from a wooden box, in a random lottery. It's a box the size of a cigar box, with little pieces of paper, the size of a small Post-it note. She's pulling out names of those who will be called.)

Next prospective juror -- the youngest so far, a woman of about 30 years -- walks up to the judge to ask him a question. He seems to have answered it, and asks her to take the witness stand and be sworn in.

Prospective juror says Covid-19 didn't have a strong impact on her, nor does she have an opinion on the matters at hand or any of the defendants. I'd call her a "normie" -- not political in any way. She's on the jury.

The judge announces that one of the jurors has a learning disability and is illiterate. The judge asks the lawyers for their opinion. The prosecutor says there will be documentary evidence (e.g. things to read).

Defence lawyer Ryan Durran says he's loathe to object to anyone based on educational levels, but it's important to be able to understand the evidence.

Defence lawyer Michael Johnston says literacy is not a requirement to serve as a juror.

Defence lawyer Adam Blake-Gallipeau asks if there is a way to accommodate the juror. The judge says it's not practical.

Judge: I'm loathe to excuse any juror, but the important issue is the fairness of the trial for the accused.

Judge says he's going to excuse juror, and asks the clerk to escort him out a back way (so he's not embarrassed by walking through the court.)

Next prospective juror is up. Looks like he's about 55. When asked about Covid-19 impact, he says, "absolutely". Says he could put that aside and be fair. Asked about the Coutts protest, he said he didn't really know a lot about it. Says he could be fair about that, too.

Next: 50-year-old woman. Says Covid-19 had an impact on her. Says she "doesn't totally agree or disagree" with the border protest. Prosecutor Steven Johnston says he'd like to make submissions. Prospective juror escorted out.

Prosecutor Steven Johnston: her avowal of neutrality wasn't strong enough. Defence lawyers Michael Johnston, Ryan Durran and Alan Honner say they're fine with her.

Judge says woman's demeanour was convincing -- juror accepted.

By the way, this is the first time that the entire pew in court set aside for journalists has been occupied.

Next: 25- or 30-year old working class man. Says Covid didn't impact him. Says he has no strong opinion about the Coutts protest. Approved.

Next: 45-year-old man. If I were going by aesthetics alone, I'd call him conservative.

"Of course" Covid affected him, he says.

He says he'll be impartial. Approved.

Next: 30-year-old woman.

Says Covid had no impact other. Has no opinion on the protest or the defendants.

Approved.

We're probably getting close to the full jury -- they may be empanelling a few extra jurors as spares, I'm not sure of the procedure.

Next: 55-year-old woman. She asks to speak with the judge, and approaches him. They whisper.

The judge excuses her.

Next: the youngest man of the day -- he looks maybe 20. He could even be younger.

If I saw this guy on the street I'd assume he was in high school!

He says Covid had an impact on him, but he can set that aside. He says he has no strong opinion about the border protest or anyone charged.

Approved.

Doogie Howser, Juror.

Judge: we have 12 jurors. They're selecting additional jurors now.

Next: 65-year-old male. Says the only impact Covid had on him was that he had to work from home. Says he doesn't know much about the protest.

Approved.

Next: 60-year-old man. Approaches the judge to speak with him. Can't hear what he's saying, but the judge is smiling in response. I can hear the judge say, "I'm going to excuse you, sir."

On his way out, he waves to a defendant -- I think he's a relative of one of the men on trial.

Next: 20- or 25-year-old woman. Answers the questions neutrally. Approved.

Judge: we have now selected 14 individuals.

Judge: any concerns with the process?

All lawyers say they're fine.

Judge says everything's going to move now to the bigger courtroom.

So the jury is now empanelled -- 12, plus 2 extras. Those 14 jurors are now moving to a different courtroom, where the judge is about to address them as a group. The public (including journalists) have been directed to another courtroom to watch things by a video.

The have just turned on the video feed from the room with the jurors, judge and lawyers. (And I presume the defendants themselves are in there.)

Judge asks jurors for any last requests to be excluded or exempted. None say so.

Judge addresses the jury now.

Judge tells the jury that there are jury officers who will assist them. Judge reminds jurors to rearrange appointments in the days ahead.

Judge suggests that the trial will be begin at 2 p.m. local time, though the prosecutor says he has something to say about that.

Judge says the trial will begin at 10 a.m. every day, but jurors have to attend at 9:30 a.m. every day.

Judge says that the jurors must sit in the same seat in the jury box every day.

Judge: you are not to discuss this case with anyone. Do nothing to prepare for this trial -- do not try to find out anything else about the case of defendants. Don't go on the Internet, don't read the news about it.

Judge says these are important parts of a fair trial -- only "proper and reliable information" can be relied on.

Judge says jury can leave the room to get more advice from jury officers; lawyers are to stay.

We can see on the video that the jury has left. Judge thanks those from the jury pool who were not chosen. They are now asked to leave, too.

(I'm curious how many people were called to fill 14 seats. Perhaps even 100?)

If you're interested in crowdfunding the legal defence for the men, you can do so at .

If you're interested in covering the cost of our journalist, Robert Kraychik, who will be here to cover the entire trial, you can do that at Coutts3.com
TruckerTrial.com

Steven Johnston, the prosecutor, is on his feet. He says jury selection went faster than he thought it would go, so his witnesses aren't ready to go. He proposes to start tomorrow.

Defence lawyers say they thought the day would go to jury selection, too, so they are fine with starting the trial in the main tomorrow.

Judge: I'm going to call the jury back in "right now". They can have lunch at the court but they can go for the day if they want.

Jurors are back in. Judge is just talking about the layout of the courtroom, etc.

Judge finishes his remarks. Jury is excused. Court will resume tomorrow. My colleague Robert Kryachik (@rkraychik) will be here for the whole trial.