This stood out to me, too. I have a theory, and I'm American, so please correct/forgive any misinterpretations I've made of Canadian law.
I'm thinking that DG's lawyers might be vying for a not criminally responsible assessment. According to the website I'm linking below, the NCR process starts after a suspect has pleaded guilty OR.. after they have been found guilty at trial.
IMo, They're waiting until after the Crown rests to decide if they should call Garland's psychiatrist as a witness or not. I believe s/he would have to testify-
As I understand this language, if it can be proved DG was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the crime, he can be assessed for NCR. It also specified that the defendant doesn't understand their actions were morally wrong, not just legally wrong.
http://lawfacts.ca/mental-health/assessments
DG's notes at trial, the journal he was seen writing in, presumably other journals/writings that exist- maybe those will be brought to surface.
Now, I'm curious how the obvious premeditation would factor into a decision like that? (I mean, everyone pretty much agrees that the defense hasn't tried to dispute really any of the evidence- they know he's guilty, it seems) Does planning a double murder while suffering from a mental disorder make him "eligible" for NCR or could it be argued that premeditation is knowledge of moral wrongdoing (I'm no philosopher)?
Any thoughts??
Ps, I spend more time lurking than posting but a huge shout out to those of you who are posting the trial tweets. You are so appreciated!!
all jmo
eta a detail
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk