Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking with former Canadian Supreme Court Justice – Michael Moldaver – an opportunity that arose through my internship at Goodmans LLP, where he is one of the in-house counsel.
Our conversation was delightful (to say the least), as he was so open and kind. He gave me great advice and shared some of his most memorable moments on the bench and during his criminal practice.
The highlight of our chat, however, was a well-informed discussion on jury representativeness, one of my favourite legal topics and a central issue in many contemporary legal debates and studies.
My interest in this topic blossomed over the past winter semester, after taking a law course at my university entitled “The Psychology of the Jury,” taught by Dr. Evelyn Maeder.
This class planted a seed of interest in me, and I had an opportunity to write a position paper on both the pros and cons of jury representativeness from a psycholegal lens. In the paper, I referred to different theories and prominent Canadian cases such as R v Kokopenance and R v Chouhan. Landmark cases on which Justice Moldaver presided.
Naturally, I asked him about his judgements, and we had a great discussion where I also raised my own arguments and positions.
All in all, I am so fortunate for my current position because it allows me to have conversations like this. As a student, I truly relish conversations with lawyers like Justice Moldaver because they are a reminder of all the amazing people within the profession.
This chat is one that I will certainly cherish for a lifetime.
To learn about Justice Moldaver and his judicial legacy click here.
