A major difference between the Canadian and the American trial procedures is the controls that the Canadian judiciary may place on the mass media in order to prevent pretrial publicity. With respect to the preliminary inquiry, the Canadian Criminal Code provides that although the fact that the inquiry has been held may be reported, the accused person has the right to ask for an order that bans publication of the content of the proceedings until the charges are dropped or the trial is completed. The judge has no discretion; the motion must be granted. Cameras are not permitted in Canadian courtrooms, and jurors are prohibited from ever disclosing anything about their deliberations under threat of a summary conviction that carries a sentence of 6 months imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. In jury selection in Canada, challenges for cause occur in only a small percentage of criminal trials. Most often, jurors are selected without any individual questioning. This comparative analysis helps to show that jury systems have interconnected parts. The relatively limited jury selection procedures in Canada must be viewed in the context of the greater constraints on pretrial publicity and on more judicial control over the trial process. Given that American jurisprudence does not allow such restraints, proposals to eliminate peremptory challenges, severely curtail voir dire, or to change the unanimity rule, to take three examples, should be considered in the context of checks and balances, or their absence, in other parts of the system. 23 footnotes