Legal Analysis

[antiquegirl]

Does anyone know the requirements for bail? Someone raised the point about no bail being offered in this case. Is that a fact, or were the accused not able to raise the funds? (legal eagles....???)

I'm not a legal eagle, but here's some information on conditions. I don't think it has to do with bail "being offered", but for the defense to ask for a "judicial interim release", which is what bail is now called. There is a hearing involved. Whether it's granted or not will be at the judge's discretion.

"Under Canadian law, judges can deny bail if they believe an accused person will not attend court or if they feel the public needs to be protected from the accused.

Judges can also refuse to grant bail if they decide it is necessary to keep the accused behind bars so as to maintain confidence in the administration of justice."

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...der&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

There is more information here:

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...ada&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

The severity of the crime also comes into play and I'd think the amount of bail would be commensurate with the severity. In MTR and TLM's case, I highly doubt that either's family would be able to raise it. If they were given that opportunity, it hasn't been made public.

MOO

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Does anyone know the requirements for bail? Someone raised the point about no bail being offered in this case. Is that a fact, or were the accused not able to raise the funds? (legal eagles....???)

Turbo, I work for a "Bay Street" law firm in downtown Toronto, so I guess I'd be considered a legal eagle (LOL) and will do my best to answer your question.

A bail hearing is a hearing with the defence and the Crown arguing why or why not and the Judge makes his decision based on that.

In determining whether or not an individual facing criminal charges should be released from jail, the Court must be satisfied that the accused person will attend their court dates, that there is not a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further criminal offences while released on bail and that the community would not be offended by the person's release given the serious nature of the offences alleged and the strength of the Crown’s case against the accused. The onus is generally on the Crown to show why the accused should not be released on bail. In some situations, the onus is switched and it is the accused who must show why he should not be detained in jail while he awaits trial. Most commonly, the reverse onus provisions are triggered when an accused person is already released on bail for other charges or is charged with a specific offence that imposes the reverse onus procedure, such as drug trafficking. A reverse onus situation may also be triggered when the person charged does not ordinarily reside in Canada.

At the bail hearing stage, the person charged will likely need the assistance of his or her friends or family members to come to court and act as sureties.
A surety is somebody willing to supervise the accused person while released on bail and is responsible for ensuring that all of the conditions of the bail are being followed. In some instances, the accused person may be required to live with the surety and the surety will likely be required to pledge a monetary amount towards the bail. This monetary pledge ensures that the surety will properly supervise the accused person - or risk losing their money should they fail to do so. In most instances, the surety need only establish that they have access to the amount of money being pledged and need not deposit the money with the courts. Bankbook statements or property deeds are examples of ways the surety can prove their assets to the Court.

The amount of sureties and money to be pledged can vary depending on a number of factors such as the number of criminal charges the accused is facing, the type of charges, the financial situation of the surety, the surety’s ability to supervise the accused, whether the accused has a prior criminal record and the extent of the record among other considerations.

Every case is fact specific and the decision of how many sureties are required and how much money they must pledge is ultimately a decision for Judge or Justice presiding over the bail hearing. A surety may be asked to testify in Court about their plan to supervise the accused and perhaps give some background information about the accused person as well as their personal relationship with the accused in order to determine their suitability as a candidate to supervise the accused while on bail.

Hope that helps, as far as I can see if MTR or TLM were actually released on bail, the community would be offended, which could be the sole factor for bail not being granted, though I still am not sure whether or not a bail hearing has even happened at this point.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

I have been doing some further research on bail and requirements of bail.

For serious crimes under the Criminal Code, the accused is held in prison pending trial unless he or she makes an application to be released.

Based on this alone, it would be up to the defence counsel and the accused to make an application for a bail review with the Superior Court.

 

[Turbododger]

Posted by izzy45 – AUG. 5, 2009



The courts in themselves are very busy and the government has laid out a plan to reduce the number of court appearances from the time of the charge being laid to a final outcome, however the court is still very busy and all of this just takes time. Neither side would want to rush into a trial until they had all of their "ducks in a row"!
.

I will refererence this carryover quote, because Izzy provided us with some excellent, first hand answers, which are quite relevant and useful, though I don't remember what thread that was on?

BBM: It is interesting to note just how quickly MTR's council is trying to move things forward. They must really have their "ducks in a row". Especially interesting, given that the defence is still be given disclosure.

 

[CuriousJorge]

:waitasec:Sometimes speedy trials happen. I wonder what's in the making, seeing as MR's lawyers seem to have their "ducks in a row". Could it be a plea of NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity?:waitasec: His attorneys would not have to mention that bolded part until trial or pre-trial would they? And why would they?

My speculative theory on TLM's lawyers is that they want to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's dotted to prove MR involvement and avoid MR from walking free.

A case of speedy trial-Vincent Li from Edmonton, who beheaded Tim McLean on a Grey Hound bus July 30, 2008. Mr Li was sentenced March 5, 2009 to a mental ward. Sometimes evidence is too obvious.

http://video.edmontonsun.com/video/...und-not-guilty-in-beheading-trial/14907850001

 

[Turbododger]

Thank-you dear Pepperfritz (RIP) and Thoughtelf for this post back in June on reviewing how the defence may be preparing their strategies in this case.

Here is the link from the Facts and Links Thread:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3822815&postcount=63"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Canada-Victoria Stafford FACTS and LINKS only[/ame]

I am thinking that McClintic will not go to trial and Rafferty will.

Rafferty's team will be busy trying to build a case for circumstantial evidence, of that I have no doubt.

 

[Turbododger]

Does anyone know the rule of law on the disclosure of evidence?

In other words, is the crown required to provide disclosure in the order they have gotten it?

Is there any strategy "allowed" by the law, in the order of disclosing the evidence, does anyone know?

I wonder if some of the most damning forensic evidence would take a long time to process, and wouldn't even be disclosed yet?

 

[Turbododger]

If the accused in this case went to trial, would the defence put the accused on the witness stand?

TLM- Not sure.

She is known to have manipulated her way through life. Lying is instictive at this point for her, I am sure. But, on the other hand, I think she could be tripped up. The jury wouldn't feel as sorry for her, I don't think.

MTR- Yep.

His effectiveness would depend on HOW MANY WOMEN are on the jury. My bet is the defence tries for as many females on the jury as possible.

From everything we have heard and seen about this guy, he has the ability to manipulate and weasel his way with women. He easily cries and seems desperate.

If the defence put MTR on the stand, and the Crown was able to get at his ego, and get the anger to come out, his true colours would be shown.

 

[Turbododger]

What are the:

1.Strengths of the Crown's Case?
2.The weaknesses of the Defence's Case?
3.What are the frailities of the accused, would he/she be a good or an awful witness?
4.Does he/she have any corroborating evidence, any witnesses to help him out?
5. Does he/she have any positive character references that can possibly help him/her in sentencing?

 

[antiquegirl]

What are the:

1.Strengths of the Crown's Case?
2.The weaknesses of the Defence's Case?
3.What are the frailities of the accused, would he/she be a good or an awful witness?
4.Does he/she have any corroborating evidence, any witnesses to help him out?
5. Does he/she have any positive character references that can possibly help him/her in sentencing?

I'd be very interested to hear if anyone can come up with answers to any of these questions. We have heard no evidence whatsoever from official sources to give us even a hint. Any answers would be either wild guesses or based on hearsay. It would seem that only after the trial(s) would it be possible to venture an opinion on all of this. IMO, it would be presumptuous to even try, but if anyone is willing to give it a shot, go for it.

MOO

 

[nobodyzgirl]

:waitasec:Sometimes speedy trials happen. I wonder what's in the making, seeing as MR's lawyers seem to have their "ducks in a row". Could it be a plea of NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity?:waitasec: His attorneys would not have to mention that bolded part until trial or pre-trial would they? And why would they?

My speculative theory on TLM's lawyers is that they want to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's dotted to prove MR involvement and avoid MR from walking free.

A case of speedy trial-Vincent Li from Edmonton, who beheaded Tim McLean on a Grey Hound bus July 30, 2008. Mr Li was sentenced March 5, 2009 to a mental ward. Sometimes evidence is too obvious.

http://video.edmontonsun.com/video/...und-not-guilty-in-beheading-trial/14907850001

The defence would have to say Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity at the time the accused pleads either guilty or not guilty. There would be no need to mention it prior to that time.

As for the insanity plea, you may recall sometime ago the late PepperFritz mentioned that the insanity plea for murder is rarely used by the defence, as it is seldom successful. When I get some time, I'll go back and search for the post so I can bring it into this forum.

Vincent Li actually plead guilty during a court appearance, so there was no need for a trial, and it was clear that he is/was mentally unfit.

My personal opinion is that this will not be a speedy trial, and will not likely happen until sometime next year.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Does anyone know the rule of law on the disclosure of evidence?

In other words, is the crown required to provide disclosure in the order they have gotten it?

Is there any strategy "allowed" by the law, in the order of disclosing the evidence, does anyone know?

I wonder if some of the most damning forensic evidence would take a long time to process, and wouldn't even be disclosed yet?

The Crown is required to provide FULL disclosure. The order it is given does not matter. There is no strategy. If the defence feels the Crown has not provided FULL disclosure they can bring a motion to request same and the decision is made by the Judge.

There could very well be some evidence that has not yet been disclosed which should be disclosed to defence if and when it becomes available to the Crown.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

I'd be very interested to hear if anyone can come up with answers to any of these questions. We have heard no evidence whatsoever from official sources to give us even a hint. Any answers would be either wild guesses or based on hearsay. It would seem that only after the trial(s) would it be possible to venture an opinion on all of this. IMO, it would be presumptuous to even try, but if anyone is willing to give it a shot, go for it.

MOO

ITA AG, without knowing what the Crown and Defence know there is no way of being able to answer questions 1 and 2, so I'm not going to even hazard a guess at this point.

 

[Turbododger]

What are the:

1.Strengths of the Crown's Case?
2.The weaknesses of the Defence's Case?
3.What are the frailities of the accused, would he/she be a good or an awful witness?
4.Does he/she have any corroborating evidence, any witnesses to help him out?
5. Does he/she have any positive character references that can possibly help him/her in sentencing?

I neglected to mention in this post, that these were questions that the Defence Attorney from Ottawa, posted in the link above, reviews with his client, before even suggesting a direction to go with his client.

The inverse of some of the questions could be asked as well:

1. Weaknesses of the Crown's Case
2. Strengths of the Defences Case
3. What are the strengths of the accused, would he/she be a good witness?
4. Does he/she have any negative character references that could possibly go against the sentencing procedure.

If I had the time or the inclination to go to the many, many past threads, I could pull out SO MUCH speculation about the "evidence", the strengths/weaknesses, which are of course the only things published/known at this point. Things to be interpreted. Things to be discussed.

If there are any of the good ol' "thinkers" reading anymore (??????), or posters who lurk, but don't have much use for the tone as of late, I for one would sure appreciate some logical, legal analysis of the things known about the case.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

I neglected to mention in this post, that these were questions that the Defence Attorney from Ottawa, posted in the link above, reviews with his client, before even suggesting a direction to go with his client.

The inverse of some of the questions could be asked as well:

1. Weaknesses of the Crown's Case
2. Strengths of the Defences Case
3. What are the strengths of the accused, would he/she be a good witness?
4. Does he/she have any negative character references that could possibly go against the sentencing procedure.

If I had the time or the inclination to go to the many, many past threads, I could pull out SO MUCH speculation about the "evidence", the strengths/weaknesses, which are of course the only things published/known at this point. Things to be interpreted. Things to be discussed.

If there are any of the good ol' "thinkers" reading anymore (??????), or posters who lurk, but don't have much use for the tone as of late, I for one would sure appreciate some logical, legal analysis of the things known about the case.

bbm: Ottawa only has one defence attorney. Who would have thought in a city that size - wow, he/she must be kept pretty busy! LOL