Judge declares mistrial in Sanikiluaq murder trial
Court expected back on Thursday to discuss Danny Paul Eyaituk’s 1st-degree murder charge
The judge in murder trial of Danny Paul Eyaituk in Sanikiluaq says the case that began Tuesday must end in mistrial. Eyaituk was charged in 2024 with the first-degree murder in the death of his 36-year-old wife Annie Tracy Oqaituq. (File photo)
A first-degree murder trial in Sanikiluaq ended Wednesday in a mistrial, one day after it started due to what the judge called “unexpected” issues.
“I want to assure you that it is not a reflection on the jury nor a reflection on individual members of the jury,” Justice Susan Cooper told the jury presiding over the trial of Danny Paul Eyaituk.
On April 19, 2024, the RCMP arrested Eyaituk, who was 38 at the time, after his wife Annie Tracy Oqaituq, 36, was found dead in their home. His trial began Tuesday.
On Wednesday, Crown prosecutor Emma Baasch questioned RCMP Const. Kevin Bechard-Dube, the officer who arrested Eyaituk on the night of the incident a little more than two years ago.
As soon as Bechard-Dube finished his testimony, Cooper asked the jury to leave the room in the hamlet’s community hall that was being used for the trial. The judge then had a discussion with the Crown and defence lawyers about how to proceed with the case.
A publication ban prohibits Nunatsiaq News from reporting what was said in the courtroom in the jury’s absence.
When the jury was called back in, Cooper told them the trial could not proceed.
“Sometimes things happen during trials that cannot be foreseen and are completely unexpected,” she said.
On Tuesday one juror was dismissed after he was overheard saying he was going to try to “defend” the accused.
Sanikiluaq is a community of just over 1,100 people.
The court is set to come back on Thursday to discuss how to proceed with the case in light of the mistrial.
Sanikiluaq has a population of about one thousand people. What that means in practice is that every single person sitting on that jury would likely have known the accused as an acquaintance, and some may have even known him as more than an acquaintance. I can’t help but question how that process is workable when 12 people are sitting as judges in a case where the accused is someone they know or worse someone they know pretty well. How can they be expected to disabuse themselves of their entire history of knowing that person when they are deciding what the facts are and who to believe and not believe??
I find it troubling that the courts hold jury trials in such serious matters in Nunavut’s smallest communities. I really wish that they would re-think that practice.