Judge makes predetermined choice

blueblood · January 18, 2007

wasn't a judge not supposed to rule on a case before the trial starts?

FTA Lawyer · January 23, 2007

ctv
wasn't a judge not supposed to rule on a case before the trial starts?

The judge in a jury trial is not the one who decides what happened...the judge is responsible for outlining the law, and the jury decides the facts.

When a judge tells a jury that an acquittal is not an option, it is often appropriate because in the circumstances the law requires a conviction based on the evidence that has been presented in court.

Presumably, in this case, the evidence amounted to this accused testifying that he did indeed load his gun and kill his daughter's boyfriend. Presumably, it was also in such a manner that self defence or defence of others provisions in the Criminal Code could not legally apply.

As such, the judge has explained to the jury that following the appropriate law, they must convict...the only question for them to decide is whether it was 1st or 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter.

That all being said, the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote a decision strongly supporting the power of a jury to "nullify", that is, acquit someone even where it was legally not possible. It is the latest case of Grant Krieger, pot crusader, who took the stand in his trial and fully admitted to growing marijuana illegally and trafficking it to people to help their medical conditions.

The judge instructed the jury to find guilt and when they objected (including 2 jurors trying to be excused due to their consciences) he ordered them to find guilt. The SCC said this was wrong...the jurors had a legal and moral obligation to convict, but whether they did so or not was between them and their own conscience / God / etc. and that while a jury has no legal right to nullify, they have the power to do so.

FTA

Wilber · January 23, 2007

ctv

wasn't a judge not supposed to rule on a case before the trial starts?

The judge in a jury trial is not the one who decides what happened...the judge is responsible for outlining the law, and the jury decides the facts.

When a judge tells a jury that an acquittal is not an option, it is often appropriate because in the circumstances the law requires a conviction based on the evidence that has been presented in court.

Presumably, in this case, the evidence amounted to this accused testifying that he did indeed load his gun and kill his daughter's boyfriend. Presumably, it was also in such a manner that self defence or defence of others provisions in the Criminal Code could not legally apply.

As such, the judge has explained to the jury that following the appropriate law, they must convict...the only question for them to decide is whether it was 1st or 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter.

That all being said, the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote a decision strongly supporting the power of a jury to "nullify", that is, acquit someone even where it was legally not possible. It is the latest case of Grant Krieger, pot crusader, who took the stand in his trial and fully admitted to growing marijuana illegally and trafficking it to people to help their medical conditions.

The judge instructed the jury to find guilt and when they objected (including 2 jurors trying to be excused due to their consciences) he ordered them to find guilt. The SCC said this was wrong...the jurors had a legal and moral obligation to convict, but whether they did so or not was between them and their own conscience / God / etc. and that while a jury has no legal right to nullify, they have the power to do so.

FTA

Wouldn't that make a successfull appeal by the prosecution and another trial almost inevitable?

guyser · January 23, 2007

Lets hope Dad gets the book thrown at him. I sympathize with his predicament , but to go and kill someone for using drugs is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is what the judge is saying IMO)

This is what seals it for me... "In his closing argument, lawyer Morris Bodnar asked the jury to send the message that "we are mad as hell and we did something about people killing our children."

Sure Morris, we killed someone elses kid.

I can only suspect that the parents of the girl have been a bit off in the discipline dept.

blueblood · January 23, 2007

That was probably one of the reasons why the judge made the jury say the defendant was guilty. This case is big news in my area and the defendant is viewed as a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury would have found him not guilty had the option been there.

guyser · January 23, 2007

That was probably one of the reasons why the judge made the jury say the defendant was guilty. This case is big news in my area and the defendant is viewed as a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury would have found him not guilty had the option been there.

Viewed as a hero? Really? Wow, just plain wow!

Riverwind · January 23, 2007

That was probably one of the reasons why the judge made the jury say the defendant was guilty. This case is big news in my area and the defendant is viewed as a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury would have found him not guilty had the option been there.

This case is absolutely bizarre - an addict is never an addict because of one person. His daughter made the choice to do drugs because she wanted to do drugs - not because this particular dealer forced her to. If the circumstances were different and that particular dealer was doing time you can be assured that the daughter in question would have found her drug elsewhere.

What happened here is her father's extreme actions jolted her out of her cycle of self destruction and made her realize that she was screwing up other people's lives too. I hope she stays clean but there are no gurantees.

That said this raises an interesting question: How many fathers would be willing spend 10 years in jail if they beleived that would save their daughter's life?

blueblood · January 23, 2007

That was probably one of the reasons why the judge made the jury say the defendant was guilty. This case is big news in my area and the defendant is viewed as a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury would have found him not guilty had the option been there.

Viewed as a hero? Really? Wow, just plain wow!

Hmm, the guy loved and cared about his daughter very much. She made a bad choice and being a young and foolish and selfish girl it was corroding her. The dad couldn't bear to see his daughter go down the tubes because of her boyfriend. The boyfriend had uttered threats too. The daughter was put into forced rehab, and after went to the boyfriend's house. This was the defendant's breaking point. He went to the defendant's house armed (one could say he armed himself to defend himself, but that's highly unlikely). He seen the defendant and then snapped. He literally went into a rage and unloaded his whole clip into the guy. You can google the whole case if you like. With that being said, the daughter turned her life around, she graduated high school and manages a store in the mall.

The defendant sacrificed his freedom so that her daughter could live. That's a hero in my book.

blueblood · January 23, 2007

That was probably one of the reasons why the judge made the jury say the defendant was guilty. This case is big news in my area and the defendant is viewed as a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury would have found him not guilty had the option been there.
This case is absolutely bizarre - an addict is never an addict because of one person. His daughter made the choice to do drugs because she wanted to do drugs - not because this particular dealer forced her to. If the circumstances were different and that particular dealer was doing time you can be assured that the daughter in question would have found her drug elsewhere.
What happened here is her father's extreme actions jolted her out of her cycle of self destruction and made her realize that she was screwing up other people's lives too. I hope she stays clean but there are no gurantees.

That said this raises an interesting question: How many fathers would be willing spend 10 years in jail if they beleived that would save their daughter's life?

This boyfriend was a nutbar, It's safe to say he forced her into it. Of couse it's her final choice, but mind control and coercion can be very powerful motivators.

guyser · January 23, 2007

The defendant sacrificed his freedom so that her daughter could live. That's a hero in my book.

The father did not sacrifice his freedom so that his daughter could live, he sacrificed the freedom of the young man.

That sure as hell is not a hero in my book.

Lets look at this....we have parents(s) on both sides.

We have two kids , one young, one not so young.

These "kids" were doing drugs.

So the drugs cancel each other out.

But only one is dead?

Murder first degree, plain and simple.

blueblood · January 23, 2007

The defendant sacrificed his freedom so that her daughter could live. That's a hero in my book.

The father did not sacrifice his freedom so that his daughter could live, he sacrificed the freedom of the young man.

That sure as hell is not a hero in my book.

Lets look at this....we have parents(s) on both sides.

We have two kids , one young, one not so young.

These "kids" were doing drugs.

So the drugs cancel each other out.

But only one is dead?

Murder first degree, plain and simple.

Young man coerces and forces drugs upon daughter. He puts daughter in downward cycle. Why should he be free to do that? The father didn't go out at a random guy and said "you do drugs you die now" It was more like "you forced my daughter into your mess and are the root cause of ruining her life, without you she would be fine." You can't blame her friends, it was her friends that mailed the letter to her parents explaining the grave situation the daughter was in. Had the boyfriend been alive, she would have more than likely OD'd. It was the lesser of two evils. The boyfriend was also a convicted drug dealer on top of it. Your situation doesn't relate to this case at all. No he sacrificed himself to save his daughter, it was only a matter of time before that drug dealer would have done something crazy.

Fortunata · January 23, 2007

Just on the face of what I know, not being there for all the testimony, I'd call it manslaughter. The father killed the boyfriend, no premeditation that I can see- once the urgency hit him he took action. Premeditated, to me, means cold bloodedly thinking it out thoroughly without emotion.

Interesting dilemma though for the parents. Yes, we all want to keep our kids safe - should there be a legal mechanism to keep our kids from the likes of the boyfriend, once the situation is recognized, without resorting to extreme measures that we see here? I hear the arguments such as "her choice" but once an addict it may not be as simple as being able to make a choice. Some addictions are stronger than any common sense, than any treatment center. Those people, in my mind, are no longer capable of making a choice. Not that they don't have to be held accountable for their actions but it's not so black and white as some would like to think, imv.

blueblood · January 23, 2007

The defendant got nailed with 2nd degree murder and is going to jail for a long time.

guyser · January 23, 2007

1)Young man coerces and forces drugs upon daughter He puts daughter in downward cycle. (2) Why should he be free to do that? (3) The father didn't go out at a random guy and said "you do drugs you die now" It was more like "you forced my daughter into your mess and are the root cause of ruining her life, without you she would be fine." You can't blame her friends, it was her friends that mailed the letter to her parents explaining the grave situation the daughter was in. (3) Had the boyfriend been alive, she would have more than likely OD'd. It was the lesser of two evils. The boyfriend was also a convicted drug dealer on top of it. Your situation doesn't relate to this case at all. No he sacrificed himself to save his daughter, it was only a matter of time before that drug dealer would have done something crazy.

1) no coercion no forcing in newspaper, she lived with him.

2) Free to do what, give a willing participant drugs? He can and did.

3)What has that got to do with anything? He is not judge jury and executioner....oh wait he is!

4) No way of knowing, maybe likely, but also likely she would have wisened up in later life.Both are immaterial.

Fortunata, pre-meditated is exactly what he did. He loaded a gun, brought extra bullets, and drove to the house . Nothing mentioned that he feared for his safety, so why did he need a gun? To kill thats why.

That said, I would think 2nd degree is better considering the sad state of affairs here.

And then a civil suit from the mom of the boy murdered. Hopefully then he will pay his debt again.

geoffrey · January 24, 2007

That said this raises an interesting question: How many fathers would be willing spend 10 years in jail if they beleived that would save their daughter's life?

Indeed. I have admiration for his commitment to his daughter, but his means are obviously shakey.

Some people are stating the fact that it was the daughters choice. Something else needs to be considered here... she was 16, he was 24. There is obvious coercion at that sort of age discrepancy. I'd struggle with encouraging raising the age of consent to 18 with a sizeable 6 year allowance or something like that, but 16 to 24? Let's be realistic here, the guy was obviously messing with this kids mind.

Let's move to a divide by two, add seven regulation on age of consent (half kidding with that) and then this dad could have easily had this freak locked up before it esclated to violence.

Argus · January 24, 2007

That was probably one of the reasons why the judge made the jury say the defendant was guilty. This case is big news in my area and the defendant is viewed as a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury would have found him not guilty had the option been there.

Viewed as a hero? Really? Wow, just plain wow!

I wouldn't say hero. I think he should at least have gotten a reasonable fine.

Ten dollars, say.

Argus · January 24, 2007

When a judge tells a jury that an acquittal is not an option, it is often appropriate because in the circumstances the law requires a conviction based on the evidence that has been presented in court.
d guilt and when they objected (including 2 jurors trying to be excused due to their consciences) he ordered them to find guilt. The SCC said this was wrong...the jurors had a legal and moral obligation to convict, but whether they did so or not was between them and their own conscience / God / etc. and that while a jury has no legal right to nullify, they have the

How can you have a legal obligation to convict if the SC says there is no law forcing you to do so?

Why do we have juries? Do any of you lawyers even remember? Why have a bunch of amateurs unconnected with law making the decision?

Because if the law is unfair or stupidly applied, the ordinary citizens have the absolute right to rebel and refuse to convict - in the interest of justice and fairness, regardless of whether the person actually did the deed. I'm constantly amazed how many people don't seem to realize this and presume that the jury must be obedient to the dictates of often robotic legal bureaucrats.

If I was on the jury I would never have agreed to convict for murder. No way, no how. I don't know that I would have convicted at all. IMHO the guy who was killed was a waste of skin tissue.

cybercoma · January 24, 2007

Capital punishment without trial or jury for drug dealing.

That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me Argus.

Furthermore, this girl made the decision to live with this guy. These parents, who obviously don't know how to handle things rationally (as evidenced by the father's willingness to take another person's life, not because the guy murdered his daughter, but because he was doing drugs WITH her), allowed their 16 year old daughter to live with him. Maybe allow is not the right word, but the daughter for whatever reason refused to live with them. Could it be that her father is psycho enough to shoot someone?

Who knows.

I absolutely believe that this man should be charged with murder, first degree for the act and intent of murdering his daughter's bf.

Unless, as I said above, the death penalty with no trial or jury is the appropriate penalty for dealing drugs. Vigilantes in the streets murdering drug dealers based on suspicions is not something I feel would be constructive in our society.

blueblood · January 24, 2007

Furthermore, this girl made the decision to live with this guy.

So it doesn't matter that she was coerced into the desicion? With that logic, you might as well let some religious teachers push their political and religious views on a grade 10 class, after all they can make their own desicions, their minds aren't impressionable :rolleyes: .

but the daughter for whatever reason refused to live with them. Could it be that her father is psycho enough to shoot someone?

That reason is that like most girls at that age they are extremely selfish and narrow minded. Being under that nutbar's mind control doesn't help. Where would you rather be if you were in her shoes at the time, at a place where the bf is "madly in love with you" and is catering to you or at a place where you are in constant shit for being high? -> that's what she's thinking. Her father was not a psycho and a respected guy in the community, it was after she went into rehab and went back to the "drug jungle" that her father finally snapped.

I absolutely believe that this man should be charged with murder, first degree for the act and intent of murdering his daughter's bf.

I believe he should have not only been acquitted but given a commendation by the RCMP.

Vigilantes in the streets murdering drug dealers based on suspicions is not something I feel would be constructive in our society.

There was no suspicions about this drug dealer. I feel having drug dealers like this who coerce and manipulate young people is much less constructive in our society than people stepping up and putting a stop to it.

guyser · January 24, 2007

He shot the man his daughter was living with because she willingly took drugs ?

And you are okay with it.WOW!

Glad to see the dad is going to jail . He deserves it and the justice system in this country is correct in punishing him.

cybercoma · January 24, 2007

In your post you say the father "snapped" which by definition means he didn't react as a reasonable, rational person. We make laws to protect us against people who "snap" and he should face the penalty.

I find it incredibly ironic that you'd bash drug-dealing (which deserves to be bashed as well), but say a murderer deserves respect.

They were both wrong and if you really want to argue, the drug-dealer's crime was FAR less despicable than the murderer.

Personally, I think they were both wrong and I think you're a terrible person for supporting someone who murdered someone...not because he was threatened, not for self-defense, but because the other guy did drugs and was dating the murderer's daughter.

Jenna · January 24, 2007

think back to your highschool days, and imagine, if all the drug dealers were treated as this one was.

im not about to defend drug dealers, but i'd say that at least 5 out of the 10 that i was aware of have changed their lives completely for the better at this point.

how dare that father remove this opportunity from that young man.

repulsive.

blueblood · January 24, 2007

The girl was forced into it, that is common knowledge. Had the father not intervened, she'd be dead. The father killed the guy for forcing his daughter's hand and ruining her life. Are the scores of Canadians that support him terrible people too?

guyser · January 24, 2007

The girl was forced into it, that is common knowledge. Had the father not intervened, she'd be dead. The father killed the guy for forcing his daughter's hand and ruining her life. Are the scores of Canadians that support him terrible people too?

Yes in fact they are terrible people .

They advocate nothing but some nut like this dad going and killing someone because his daughter used some drugs. Judge jury and executioner , all in one.

The girl was "forced into it, that is common knowledge" . It is? Not in any report that I read. She MAY have believed if she kept on doing that she could die, but none of us, including her dumb daddy , knew or knows for sure.

Talk about abdicating personal responsibility .

Seems that the court and jury agrees with one of us. I wonder why?

blueblood · January 25, 2007

The girl was forced into it, that is common knowledge. Had the father not intervened, she'd be dead. The father killed the guy for forcing his daughter's hand and ruining her life. Are the scores of Canadians that support him terrible people too?

Yes in fact they are terrible people .

They advocate nothing but some nut like this dad going and killing someone because his daughter used some drugs. Judge jury and executioner , all in one.

The girl was "forced into it, that is common knowledge" . It is? Not in any report that I read. She MAY have believed if she kept on doing that she could die, but none of us, including her dumb daddy , knew or knows for sure.

Talk about abdicating personal responsibility .

Seems that the court and jury agrees with one of us. I wonder why?

Liberal minded judge forces jury to find defendant guilty. I wonder what would have happened if the father got killed by the skid? I'll bet the farm that the sentance would have been a lot less due to his "problems" and "situation". This is one case where the father had good reason to kill the drug dealer and he has the support of a large proportion of Canadians. Better that this nut be around, than the drug dealer. Who knows how many lives that drug dealer ruined, who knows how many people would have OD'd because of him. Better the drug dealer go than some kids.