That is all so interesting.. this seems to be rare.. how many times has it happened in Ontario where a murder trial was judged by judge-alone? I think the accused has a much better chance of receiving a not-guilty verdict because there is no emotional jury.
The jury is such an interesting concept, because they are never allowed, here in Canada, to disclose what went on in the jury room, not to anyone. The judge on the other hand, has to disclose on what and how and why she based her verdict.. so doesn't that open her verdict up to potential appeal that much more? Not only can the lawyers claim she erred on certain things, but also that she erred on what she considered in reaching her verdict? Has it ever been claimed that at a judge-only trial, the judge did consider something that the judge ruled inadmissible, since the judge was aware of it (it being, whatever it was that she viewed, ruled inadmissible, which a jury would never even know about).
I like to think there is enough here, but will be very interested to hear the judge's verdict.. I'm not feeling the love though.
I'm wondering why the defence and the Crown will still give closing summations even though it's a judge-only trial? There were no opening arguments for that very reason.. a closing summation is just to summarize (and get DM's 'evidence' into the equation without having to put up a defence for himself), but seeing as how the judge is a professional and was there for everything, can't she make her own private summaries? I guess I'm not getting why one (closing), but not the other (opening)?