This fact has been affirmed by extensive research conducted by many organizations. The Law reforms commission of Canada addressed the jury selection process in its 1980 working paper The Jury in Criminal trials, and its 1982 Report, The jury. The Commissions basic conclusion was that no drastic revision of the process was called for (Granger, 153). "There is a good reason historic, political, intellectual, and pragmatic - to retain the jury system" (Law reforms commission of Canada) Furthermore, the protocols established through common law nullify the possibility of bias being induced into jurors. In R. v. Caldough, it was established that, any communications with jurors are to be considered an interference with justice (Granger, 157). This was further expanded on in R. v. Papineau, where the court ruled that such conduct was to be considered contempt of court, and obstruction of justice (Schreck, Web Source)
These rules apply whether the juror has been sworn, discharged, or whether the prospective juror has just merely been summoned to serve. A violation of the rule can result in discharge, of the juror, a mistrial, a citation for contempt of court, or a criminal charge (Granger, 157). Also, "a juror must not only be impartial, but manifestly be seen to be impartial" (Granger, 158). ...