Courts Bureau
In less than a week, two Toronto juries have acquitted defendants who admitted killing people who may or may not have been armed.
Both trials featured victims with violent pasts and frequent run-ins with the law, leading some to speculate on the role that played in the verdicts and whether it has become acceptable for "bad people" to be killed.
"I do not think the character of a victim of crime should be relevant to whether the accused should be punished — but it often is," law professor James Morton wrote on his blog after Melissa Lewis walked free.
Lewis, 26, was in the back seat of a car when she plunged a knife into the neck of boyfriend Jermaine Gillespie while he was driving. The trial was filled with evidence that Gillespie, 25, was an abusive hot-head who often carried a gun and was screaming "Ho's pay me" to have sex when Lewis thrust the 30 centimetre knife into his neck.
Lewis argued self-defence. A jury acquitted her of second-degree murder after deliberating for less than 24 hours.
Late Thursday night, a second jury set admitted killer Kenya Smith, 33, free after a day and a half of deliberations. He testified he beat Andre Moore, 27, to the trigger when he blasted two bullets into his head in an east-end laneway.
Jurors heard about Moore's lengthy rap sheet and "rumours" he shot a Toronto police officer in 2001. Though never charged, police believe Moore did shoot Const. Tony Macias. That was ruled inadmissible during the trial.
Mid-trial, Toronto police announced the arrest of Moore's brother, Mark, on an unprecedented four counts of first-degree murder. (The jury was sequestered when police arrested Andre and Mark's mother for being an accessory after the fact to murder and other charges.)
On Friday morning, a "very discouraged" homicide Det. Sgt. Stacy Gallant was at Toronto's downtown courthouse with a dolly wheeling out bankers boxes. One contained Moore's bloodied clothing.
"He (Smith) admitted doing it, we had forensic evidence that backed up our theory," said Gallant, who spent his 43rd birthday Thursday waiting for the jury to return.
"Andre Moore was not a nice person, he was a bad guy," the officer continued. "I don't know what happened in the jury room and how they came to their decision but . . . it was a very strong case."
Gallant thinks murder trials have become too complex for 12 lay people. "There are so many legal complications that I think it's very difficult for jury members to . . . come up with a proper verdict."
Morton has heard that before. "Cases have always been complex," he wrote in email. "Juries are better educated and more well-read today than ever. I think, properly instructed, today's jury is better than the jury of 20 years ago."
He acknowledges it is a "common tactic" for defence lawyers to suggest a victim "was a bad person and their death not a great loss to society."
Morton recalls a lawyer telling him: "I couldn't prove he didn't shoot him but I could prove he deserved to be shot."
Evidence that a victim "was a bad person should be limited to showing that, say, the accused had a legitimate fear and so self-defence applies," added the former Ontario Bar Association president.
"But sometimes the evidence goes further and is taken, inappropriately, to say the deceased's death should not be punished."
6 comments:
I agree with you in general Morton, the character of the victim should be taken into consideration if there is a legitimate sense of fear on the part of the perpetrator. But I believe that this claim of legitimate fear has to be flexible so that it can include, for example, a woman's fear that she is in constant danger from a violent man for example.
However, I also think the law has to be flexible enough to consider the effect that ongoing abuse might have had on a perpetrator. If, for example someone suffered years of abuse at someone's hands and then found themselves in a conflict situation after the fact, then I think a defence attorney might have a legitimate cause to bring up a so-called "character" issue. Or is that covered in some other area of law??
Just a couple of thoughts.
We flood the public with fear... We are under seige... Crime is "out of control".... Even our gov't (particularly our gov't) spreads the fear. Eventually this perception of increased crime gets into the public psyche. The "seige mentality" creates the fear that drives the desire for more security.
As fair-minded advocates, we need to step up and ensure the rule of law, and ensure the public hears the opposite of the fear arguement.. and avoids the incremental slide towards extreme paranoia.
"Jurors heard about Moore's lengthy rap sheet and "rumours" he shot a Toronto police officer in 2001. Though never charged, police believe Moore did shoot Const. Tony Macias. That was ruled inadmissible during the trial."
That doesn't make sense Morton.
Care to correct?
"We flood the public with fear... We are under seige... Crime is "out of control".... Even our gov't (particularly our gov't) spreads the fear. Eventually this perception of increased crime gets into the public psyche. The "seige mentality" creates the fear that drives the desire for more securit."
If that was true, the jury would have found them guilty.
Your logic is backwards. Children and University students and the public at large are brainwashed that crime is not a problem and that criminals are not responsible for their own actions.
Everyday Morton tries to convince people that criminals commit crime because of nothing they have done.
It's societies fault. The root causes are not the criminal's actions itself but rather you and I. Your the problem and I'm the problem.
I'm not surprised a Toronto jury found them not guilty. On the other hand, a jury in the USA would have given them life in prison.
Our justice system is weak, and that includes the juries.
Our juries in Toronto are the product of the cultural Marxists who have destroyed it.
Juries are supposed to come up with a unanimous conclusion. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get twelve people to agree on anything?
Language can be a barrier. Many immigrants while they can communicate well verbally lack the skill to read the nuance of the English language. Juries have to read a lot (instructions or transcripts etc.)
Sometimes when juries are faced with the prospects of spending the night (or another night) in a hotel room , away from their family,jobs etc. without pay; they will hastily come up with a verdict just to get the hell out of there.
If jurors are deadlocked one side or the other may "cave" rather than listen to a judge tell them to continue deliberating.
Juries, unless sequestered, and probably when they are in some cases will find out what was said in court in their absence or they will know inadmissable evidence. At least one of twelve jurors will find out from a relative, friend or read about it themselves etc. details that they were not supposed to know.
This is a topiс that's near to my heart... Thank you! Exactly where are your contact details though?
my blog ... www.prnewswire.com
Post a Comment