Court Appearances and Canadian Legal Terms

[Tamarind]

Maybe there's so much solid evidence to prove they both were completely involved there are no deals needed and no way to try to pin the blame on the other person.

If that were the case they would have taken a plea deal by now ! IMO

 

[Tamarind]

<bbm>

It will be a public trial ... until then, a publication ban on witness names and evidence exists for a reason (whether requested by the Crown or the defence).

Begs the question ... would you be equally concerned, have a lack of confidence in the system, if the PB had been requested by the defence?

I don't think it really matters who requests the ban. Defense often prefers a ban JMO

 

[Tamarind]

Some additional thoughts .... often "the guilty" would not object to spending 3 years in remand because it comes off their sentences as "time served" at a 3 to 1 ratio (3 years remand = 9 years served) ... but that is presuming they know they will be serving time (found guilty)

Mind you , because there are multiple murders , the sentences could be 50 & 75 years which makes "time served" mute.

I guess its also safe to say that if they are innocent , 3 years of incarceration and all the other counts that go along with that will be a significant law suit. Works both ways as they say. JMO

Most people don't bother filing lawsuits because they can't afford to, I doubt this will be the case here. Just a thought !

 

[Alethea Dice]

Some additional thoughts .... often "the guilty" would not object to spending 3 years in remand because it comes off their sentences as "time served" at a 3 to 1 ratio (3 years remand = 9 years served) ... but that is presuming they know they will be serving time (found guilty)

Mind you , because there are multiple murders , the sentences could be 50 & 75 years which makes "time served" mute.

Time served is generally 1.5:1 in Canada. Getting 3:1 is very rare. In 2009, 2:1 credit was removed by the government, allowing 1.5:1 only in exceptional circumstances. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that, in many cases, pre-trial custody warrants 1.5:1 credit for time served. The starting point is still 1:1, but many (most?) will still received 1.5:1 credit. If there's little chance for early parole, the convicted would generally receive 1:1 credit as the enhanced credit becomes meaningless.

The Criminal Code allowed sentence credits of 2-to-1 for each day in pre-trial custody, sometimes even rising to 3-to-1 in exceptional circumstances.
But the federal Conservatives argued the justice system had become too soft on criminals at the expense of victims. They knocked the credit down to a day-for-a-day, or 1-to-1. The maximum credit allowed would be only 1.5 days credit for a day served pre-sentence.
In a unanimous 7-0 decision, the high court Friday agreed the law sets out a new starting point, that 1:1 is the general rule.
But it said the limit could be exceeded in many cases, rising to the 1.5 -1 maximum, to reflect the fact pre-trial remand time doesn&#8217;t count toward parole or early release eligibility.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/11/supreme_court_restores_credit_for_pretrial_jail_time.html

In a unanimous 7-0 ruling, the high court affirmed that offenders can receive extra credit for time spent in custody before they are sentenced.
..
The Tories removed the provision, but the law still allowed for a credit of 1.5 times in exceptional circumstances, though the specifics were never defined.

The Supreme Court filled that void Friday and declared that pre-trial custody constitutes a circumstance that warrants the 1.5 credit.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/11/supreme-court-rolls-back-conservatives-tough-on-crime-time-served-sentencing-law/

It's also unlikely they will receive consecutive sentences. Last year, the Travis Baumgartner case was the first time that consecutive life sentences were sought since the law in Canada was changed to allow it in 2011, and that's because it was a huge betrayal of trust to his co-workers. Keep in mind that the alleged multiple murders did not occur at the same time and are not being tried in the same trial. If TB's trial is the first one, neither will have yet been convicted of more than one murder.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/09/20130910-073407.html

Justin Bourque also received consecutive sentences, but showed a complete lack of remorse and the murders were RCMP officers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/justin-bourque-gets-5-life-sentences-no-chance-of-parole-for-75-years-1.2818516

Under the new legislation, it is not mandatory for a judge to impose consecutive parole
ineligibility periods for offenders convicted of multiple murders. The individual judge maintains
discretion in these cases.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/consecutive-sentencing-2012.pdf

A summary of the legislation can be found here:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c54&Parl=40&Ses=2&source=library_prb

It would appear that the original consecutive sentencing legislation applies to multiple murders in one incident, although that may change as well.

http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/federal-government-to-consider-expanding-consecutive-sentencing

Also, in Canada, first degree murder is an automatic LIFE sentence with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. So in effect, it would be the eligibility for parole that would be consecutive, not the Life sentence.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Why would the crown not want evidence spilled out? Are we holding secret trials now? What evidence could the crown have that they should have to guard, and who would they be guarding it from? According to our laws, the crown must disclose all relevant evidence to the defendants in a timely manner so that they may assist in their own defence. So the crown can't be hiding any evidence from the defendants, legally.

Are they hiding evidence from the public instead, is this what you are referring to? Because we live in a country that has public trials for a reason, to make sure that things are being done fairly and that justice is being served. Secrecy does nothing to instil confidence in the system, except perhaps to those who blindly follow whatever the government says, like lost sheep. It just makes the rest of us wonder what they have to hide, and why, in my opinion.

I think robynhood means before the trial, not during. Also, if one were to plead guilty, there is a good chance that the public would not know that fact until after the second accused had their trial. It would be kept under a publication ban to protect the rights of the second accused for their fair trial.

JMO

 

[swedie]

If that were the case they would have taken a plea deal by now ! IMO

The Crown does not have to accepted any plea deals. HTH.

Prosecutors, likewise, are not obliged to plea bargain. When the alleged crime is particularly heinous or the case is highly publicized or politically charged, a prosecutor may be reluctant to offer any deals to the defendant in deference to victims or public sentiment. For example, a prosecutor may not offer a bargain to a person accused of a brutal rape and murder because such acts are widely considered to deserve the maximum allowable punishment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plea+Bargaining

 

[MsSherlock]

Why would the crown not want evidence spilled out? Are we holding secret trials now? What evidence could the crown have that they should have to guard, and who would they be guarding it from? According to our laws, the crown must disclose all relevant evidence to the defendants in a timely manner so that they may assist in their own defence. So the crown can't be hiding any evidence from the defendants, legally.

Are they hiding evidence from the public instead, is this what you are referring to? Because we live in a country that has public trials for a reason, to make sure that things are being done fairly and that justice is being served. Secrecy does nothing to instil confidence in the system, except perhaps to those who blindly follow whatever the government says, like lost sheep. It just makes the rest of us wonder what they have to hide, and why, in my opinion.

I'm puzzled by this post. IMHO any leak of information would be a miscarriage of justice. Secrecy has nothing to do with it. MOO IMO, LE have done a great job making sure that info hasn't hit the streets or rags. Chances are they won't have to take the trial all the way to Thunderbay to get a clean jury.
"Hiding evidence from the public??" What about a fair trial? What about preserving evidence? Considering that even CN's bail hearing was under a PB, I think the decision to do so is an integral part of our justice system and not something unique to poor DM. Thinking about CN, and thinking about the fact that she's out on 100K bail, makes me think that they may have a bit more evidence than the tattoo. I'll still hedge my bets on LE and the Crown. Lot's of things came out in the LM case that I could never imagine, have absolutely no reason to believe that this case won't be any different.
IMO, DM & MS may be sitting nervously in prison wondering how the testimony from their friends and acquaintances will play out. Those friends and acquaintances who have been protected by the PB, may now be facing some anxiety knowing that there is a definite date set and their personal dealings with these two will no longer be confidential. They may very well find themselves on the evening news. MOO

 

[robynhood]

Please DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS...There is a PUBLICATION BAN...or maybe you did not hear...IN CANADA PUBLICATION BANS exist so there can be a a fair TRIAL ...evidence can be protected...and YES all evidence that the CROWN has is and must be disclosed to the defendant...the end...robynhood.

 

[Juballee]

I think robynhood means before the trial, not during. Also, if one were to plead guilty, there is a good chance that the public would not know that fact until after the second accused had their trial. It would be kept under a publication ban to protect the rights of the second accused for their fair trial.

JMO

I assumed she meant before the trial as well, as I believe we were discussing the lack of a preliminary hearing signifying that the crown didn't want anything 'spilled'. I was trying to make the point that a preliminary hearing shouldn't spill anything to the defendants that they don't already know if they have been recieving their disclosure in a timely fashion. And since the publication ban would still cover any preliminary hearings as well, it's not like the crown can use that as an excuse to skip it.

I am trying to say that there is no need to claim that the crown is worried it will spill something to the defendants, and as long as the media can be trusted, they should be able to continue the publication ban and still serve justice.

 

[Tamarind]

The Crown does not have to accepted any plea deals. HTH.

Prosecutors, likewise, are not obliged to plea bargain. When the alleged crime is particularly heinous or the case is highly publicized or politically charged, a prosecutor may be reluctant to offer any deals to the defendant in deference to victims or public sentiment. For example, a prosecutor may not offer a bargain to a person accused of a brutal rape and murder because such acts are widely considered to deserve the maximum allowable punishment.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plea+Bargaining

That doesn't mean they haven't offered one IMO. We wouldn't know either way at this point. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

I'm puzzled by this post. IMHO any leak of information would be a miscarriage of justice. Secrecy has nothing to do with it. MOO IMO, LE have done a great job making sure that info hasn't hit the streets or rags.

What has LE got to do with it? ANYONE can attend the court and hear what is said, just like anyone can go read the file. This would mean that EVERYONE who attended has not reported to the press. It doesn't mean that they have not reported it to all their neighbors, friends, family and acquaintances. JMO

Chances are they won't have to take the trial all the way to Thunderbay to get a clean jury.
"Hiding evidence from the public??" What about a fair trial? What about preserving evidence? Considering that even CN's bail hearing was under a PB, I think the decision to do so is an integral part of our justice system and not something unique to poor DM.

Like I said, the publication ban doesn't stop people talking and word of mouth is a powerful method of spreading everything from truth to rumor to outright lies. JMO. If it was simply about preserving evidence they would not allow anything to get into the press, but that isn't the case, many derogatory things have already been published and still is being published in some way or other. JMO

Thinking about CN, and thinking about the fact that she's out on 100K bail, makes me think that they may have a bit more evidence than the tattoo. I'll still hedge my bets on LE and the Crown. Lot's of things came out in the LM case that I could never imagine, have absolutely no reason to believe that this case won't be any different.

Still guessing though IMO

IMO, DM & MS may be sitting nervously in prison wondering how the testimony from their friends and acquaintances will play out. Those friends and acquaintances who have been protected by the PB, may now be facing some anxiety knowing that there is a definite date set and their personal dealings with these two will no longer be confidential. They may very well find themselves on the evening news. MOO

I have no doubt that there will be a few who do not like the accused for reasons unrelated to the case. Money breeds resentment as does being good looking, add to that owning some nice cars and assets and its a breeding ground for resentment JMO. I expect the jury will be able to spot that if it occurs. Sometimes verbalized resentment says more about the speaker than the target of it, again JMO.

 

[redheadedgal]

I guess its also safe to say that if they are innocent , 3 years of incarceration and all the other counts that go along with that will be a significant law suit.

file (and win) a law suit for being wrongly incarcerated? i find that quite amusing. especially considering millard has freely CHOSEN to not request bail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lice-continue-to-search-farm/article14239837/

 

[swedie]

What has LE got to do with it? ANYONE can attend the court and hear what is said, just like anyone can go read the file. This would mean that EVERYONE who attended has not reported to the press. It doesn't mean that they have not reported it to all their neighbors, friends, family and acquaintances. JMO




Like I said, the publication ban doesn't stop people talking and word of mouth is a powerful method of spreading everything from truth to rumor to outright lies. JMO. If it was simply about preserving evidence they would not allow anything to get into the press, but that isn't the case, many derogatory things have already been published and still is being published in some way or other. JMO



Still guessing though IMO




I have no doubt that there will be a few who do not like the accused for reasons unrelated to the case. Money breeds resentment as does being good looking, add to that owning some nice cars and assets and its a breeding ground for resentment JMO. I expect the jury will be able to spot that if it occurs. Sometimes verbalized resentment says more about the speaker than the target of it, again JMO.

Those things being published may be derogatory but they may also be the truth. Interesting point you made though, not a lot of good has been said about the accused. Typically we hear things like "Wow that's a shocker. He was such a great guy." Or "I would never have guessed or imagined. He's been my neighbour, friend, coworker etc. for years and the nicest guy." The only good things being said about DM IIRC is how he spent money on friends for toys and meals and allowed friends to live in his dad's basement. As for MS IIRC there was only one female friend who came forward saying what a nice friend he was and JC who said he was the type of guy who stayed home and took care of his sick mother and dogs. Anyone recall any other positive statements made about the accused? MOO.

Mark Smich and his girlfriend, whose name cannot be printed due to a publication ban, were living in the basement of Wayne MIllard&#8217;s Etobicoke home for several weeks (at least) before he was allegedly murdered. They were not in a separate apartment, but right in the same house.

In the past, Dellen had had other friends live in the basement, and although his father was not happy with this communal living situation, he never kicked anyone out. Instead, Wayne used tactics like not stocking the fridge in the hopes that this would make the basement a less attractive crash pad.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/dellen-millard/page/2

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rge-in-mysterious-bosma-case/article12757899/

 

[swedie]

I'm puzzled by this post. IMHO any leak of information would be a miscarriage of justice. Secrecy has nothing to do with it. MOO IMO, LE have done a great job making sure that info hasn't hit the streets or rags. Chances are they won't have to take the trial all the way to Thunderbay to get a clean jury.
"Hiding evidence from the public??" What about a fair trial? What about preserving evidence? Considering that even CN's bail hearing was under a PB, I think the decision to do so is an integral part of our justice system and not something unique to poor DM. Thinking about CN, and thinking about the fact that she's out on 100K bail, makes me think that they may have a bit more evidence than the tattoo. I'll still hedge my bets on LE and the Crown. Lot's of things came out in the LM case that I could never imagine, have absolutely no reason to believe that this case won't be any different.
IMO, DM & MS may be sitting nervously in prison wondering how the testimony from their friends and acquaintances will play out. Those friends and acquaintances who have been protected by the PB, may now be facing some anxiety knowing that there is a definite date set and their personal dealings with these two will no longer be confidential. They may very well find themselves on the evening news. MOO

BBM - Speaking of LM's case. The verdict is in. Guilty of first degree murder. :great: Thank you, thank you, thank you to the jurors in this case who saw through the BS defense of mental disorders for this scum bags defense. JMHO.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...-degree-murder-in-jun-lin-s-slaying-1.2875989

 

[Tamarind]

file (and win) a law suit for being wrongly incarcerated? i find that quite amusing. especially considering millard has freely CHOSEN to not request bail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lice-continue-to-search-farm/article14239837/

Civil suits are much different to criminal suits. We will eventually know or be able to figure out why no-one is seeking bail. If he is innocent he should never have been arrested in the first place, which puts the whole incarceration as an injustice. Nothing particularly amusing about it IMO, it is what it is.

 

[Tamarind]

file (and win) a law suit for being wrongly incarcerated? i find that quite amusing. especially considering millard has freely CHOSEN to not request bail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lice-continue-to-search-farm/article14239837/

Civil suits are much different to criminal suits. We will eventually know or be able to figure out why no-one is seeking bail. If he is innocent he should never have been arrested in the first place, which puts the whole incarceration as an injustice. Nothing particularly amusing about it IMO, it is what it is.

 

[Tamarind]

Those things being published may be derogatory but they may also be the truth. Interesting point you made though, not a lot of good has been said about the accused. Typically we hear things like "Wow that's a shocker. He was such a great guy." Or "I would never have guessed or imagined. He's been my neighbour, friend, coworker etc. for years and the nicest guy." The only good thing being said about DM IIRC is how he spent money on friends for toys and meals and allowed friends to live in his dad's basement. As for MS IIRC there was only one female friend who came forward saying what a nice friend he was and JC who said he was the type of guy who stayed home and took care of his sick mother and dogs. Anyone recall any other positive statements made about the accused? MOO.

Maybe the publication ban has had something to do with that. Just saying.

Mark Smich and his girlfriend, whose name cannot be printed due to a publication ban, were living in the basement of Wayne MIllard&#8217;s Etobicoke home for several weeks (at least) before he was allegedly murdered. They were not in a separate apartment, but right in the same house.

In the past, Dellen had had other friends live in the basement, and although his father was not happy with this communal living situation, he never kicked anyone out. Instead, Wayne used tactics like not stocking the fridge in the hopes that this would make the basement a less attractive crash pad.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/dellen-millard/page/2

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rge-in-mysterious-bosma-case/article12757899/

So the Millards were used? I think DM has said this himself from what I have read. jmo

 

[swedie]

Civil suits are much different to criminal suits. We will eventually know or be able to figure out why no-one is seeking bail. If he is innocent he should never have been arrested in the first place, which puts the whole incarceration as an injustice. Nothing particularly amusing about it IMO, it is what it is.

BBM - Good point and I don't believe that is why he or MS are sitting in jail right now...not because they are innocent. But that is JMHO. LE typically do not go on hunches or guesses. Evidence is strongest indicator of finding and arresting the guilty. LE must have had some pretty damning evidence early on as it was not even four days after TB was reported missing in which DM was arrested.

It's not like LE found TB's truck inside DM's trailer, in MB's driveway and his incinerated remains on his farmland property first and assumed because those things are linked to DM, he must be the murderer. DM was arrested first and then TB's truck and remains were discovered. Doesn't sound like much of a frame up or mistaken identity to me, only that of a great investigation with solid evidence. MOO again.

 

[Tamarind]

BBM - Good point and I don't believe that is why he or MS are sitting in jail right now...not because they are innocent. But that is JMHO. LE typically do not go on hunches or guesses. Evidence is strongest indicator of finding and arresting the guilty. LE must have had some pretty damning evidence early on as it was not even four days after TB was reported missing in which DM was arrested.

It's not like LE found TB's truck inside DM's trailer, in MB's driveway and his incinerated remains on his farmland property first and assumed because those things are linked to DM, he must be the murderer. DM was arrested first and then TB's truck and remains were discovered. Doesn't sound like much of a frame up or mistaken identity to me, only that of a great investigation with solid evidence. MOO again.

Opinions are many I guess and come on all shapes and sizes. Time will tell ! IMO

Festive greetings to all !

 

[matou]

Holy Moley. What a fishing expedition. Happy fishing! and Merry Christmas to all my WS peeps!