I just want to say that if we look at some of the major criminal cases in Canada, let's call them the horrific ones that we all probably are familiar with, you probably will find that not very many jurors wanted the help on a continuing basis. I think one of the reasons for that is judges go a long way to break up, for instance, the presentation of graphic evidence. They would be conscious of the breaks that the jurors need. We have very talented judges in this country who know how to deal with these kinds of cases.
If a judge knows this is coming and knows it could be pretty hard and he's already prepared for it, he directs a lot of effort to the jurors during the trial to protect them, to make sure they have breaks, etc. I think that's one of the reasons that there aren't that many people who need the access right away. Of course, it affects us all. A defence counsel... I'm pleased it was heard; it affects everybody. As a defence counsel, you see a murder take place. It may not resonate for quite some time. The same thing applies to jurors. We're doing a job. Jurors are looking at it, seeing it, listening to it.
I think the role that the judges take in carefully making sure that there's a balance contributes to the lack of need for the jurors after.