Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Convicted killer wants murder charge in another case stayed due to delays


TORONTO -- A lawyer for a convicted killer who is also accused of murdering a Toronto woman says the murder charge in that case should be stayed because it's been nearly three years since the charge was laid.

Thomas Dungey told court Thursday he will make the formal request in an application to court because his client, Mark Smich, has to be tried within a reasonable time.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/convict...n-another-case-stayed-due-to-delays-1.3278175
 
I suspected this would happen and asked about it in my post #691 above. Looks like they're going for it.
 
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, he doesn't need to be tried with Millard. Millard is the main cause of the delays anyway..

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
 
I could see this coming. Unbelievable.
 
We didn't we see this coming did we?! ;) Good thing we're pretty much guaranteed MS isn't going anywhere outside of prison walls for the next 21+ years for TB's murder.

Perhaps if trials were held from 8am to 5pm, Monday to Friday with two 10 minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch as opposed to 10am to 4:30pm, Monday to Thursday, two 20 minute breaks and an hour and a half for lunch, they could reduce a trial from the average of six weeks to three or four weeks. Not to mention all the time that seems to be wasted on these month court appearances...it all takes time but nothing seems to get resolved, or very little. Oh the rights of the criminals. :sigh: SMH. JMO.
 
I'm not sure that this new SC order will be able to be applied to cases that were charged prior to 2016 when the order came down. Especially in this case where the accused were already being held and facing trial on another murder charge. Had the Crown known that the SC was going to rule this way, it is probably likely that they would not have laid the charges until just before, during or after the Bosma trial. How could the SC reasonably have expected them to be able to investigate, co ordinate and complete two complex murder trials in the course of 40 months? It's not like these are the only two cases they are dealing with.

So could they have held off in laying the charges for the other two cases or is there a reason why they had to charge them when they did? :waitasec:

MOO
 
Kamille said:
I'm not sure that this new SC order will be able to be applied to cases that were charged prior to 2016 when the order came down. Especially in this case where the accused were already being held and facing trial on another murder charge. Had the Crown known that the SC was going to rule this way, it is probably likely that they would not have laid the charges until just before, during or after the Bosma trial. How could the SC reasonably have expected them to be able to investigate, co ordinate and complete two complex murder trials in the course of 40 months? It's not like these are the only two cases they are dealing with.

So could they have held off in laying the charges for the other two cases or is there a reason why they had to charge them when they did? :waitasec:

MOO
Click to expand...

Apparently the new ruling will apply to old cases. See this article quoted below. It also notes that a murder charge for killing a fellow inmate in 2011 was stayed. This accused was already incarcerated, just as MS is.. which kind of opposes what the lawyer being interviewed by Hepfner was saying.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-court-trials-jordan-decision-supreme-court-1.3803543

Here is an article by Christie Blatchford about the new ruling. It sounds as if MS's case will be one in which an exception would be granted, since his case seems to have exceptional circumstances. moo. Still, I'll bet DM is $h!ttin6 bricks!

If the delay in getting to trial exceeds the ceilings, “then the delay is presumptively unreasonable,” and prosecutors will have to prove there were exceptional circumstances (such as medical emergencies or extradition of the accused) in order to avoid the charges being stayed.

The court also took steps to avoid a repeat of what happened in the wake of R v Askov, a 1990 Supreme Court case that saw “tens of thousands of charges” stayed as a result of the abrupt change in the law.


For cases now in the system, where “it is not fair to strictly judge participants in the criminal justice system against standards of which they had no notice,” the new regime allows for “a transitional exceptional circumstance” where charges were brought before Friday’s decision.
....
“Ultimately, for most cases that already are in the system, the release of this decision should not automatically transform what would previously have been considered a reasonable delay into an unreasonable one,” the judges wrote. “Change takes time.”
Click to expand...
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...will-jolt-the-slow-grinding-wheels-of-justice
 
So curious why Millard lawyers wouldn't be going for the same thing?
 
canadiangirl said:
So curious why Millard lawyers wouldn't be going for the same thing?
Click to expand...

Because Millard is the reason for the hold up. He has all along been saying he would represent himself in the LB trial, and then in October 2016 he tried to postpone the trial from February 2017 to January 2018. The judge allowed the postponement only until September 2017. The postponement was opposed by both Smich's lawyer and the Crown.

.... Superior Court Justice John McMahon said that Millard had had more than a year to retain a lawyer to represent him, and against the repeated urging of the court to hire a lawyer, had maintained he would represent himself.

....

“Mr. Millard has not acted diligently,” said McMahon, finding that delaying the trial until January 2018 would be unreasonable to Smich and the Crown. The trial will proceed in September whether or not Millard has retained a lawyer, he said.


Both Crown prosecutor Jill Cameron and Thomas Dungey, the lawyer representing Smich, objected to the adjournment request, arguing this was a ploy by Millard to manipulate the courts.


Ahead of the Tim Bosma trial, Millard sought adjournment after adjournment, Dungey said.


“That is the pattern we are seeing again….what we have is Mr. Millard controlling the courts,” he said. ....
Click to expand...

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...-of-laura-babcock-postponed-to-sept-2017.html
 
Adding to last post, how ironic it would be if Smich is successful in his bid, due to Millard's shenanigans. There is Millard, doing his usual manipulation of the courts, and it results in his alleged accomplice getting off the hook? Can you imagine his fury?
 
ILoveDateline said:
Thanks for posting.

From the article: "Plus, a .38-caliber pistol was found in a toolbox owned by Millard."

I don't recall that.

It's too bad the article quotes Alex Pierson more than ABro.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

BBM

Because it never happened. Fact checking for a lot of these sites is not a top priority IMO.
 
deugirtni said:
Adding to last post, how ironic it would be if Smich is successful in his bid, due to Millard's shenanigans. There is Millard, doing his usual manipulation of the courts, and it results in his alleged accomplice getting off the hook? Can you imagine his fury?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that MS's attempt will be shot down, especially considering he spent most of his pre trial time in custody for another murder and the subsequent trial for that, but that would make DM pretty furious I'm sure.

We also would miss out on having TD helping the Crown out with the cross examination of witnesses favourable to DM. ;)

MOO
 
Kamille said:
BBM

Because it never happened. Fact checking for a lot of these sites is not a top priority IMO.
Click to expand...

I just read the article mentioned. It seems that correct spelling/typing of basic words and getting names straight is also not priority. They call MS Tim Smich at one point.
 
Wonder if the crown could subtract the amount of time/months MS wasn't available because he was on trial for TB murder- from the time he proposes he was delayed and wants a stay on the LB trial. If that makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 166 more.
Total: 725 (members: 167, guests: 558)

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
558
Total visitors
725
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,787
Messages
18,258,052
Members
234,763
Latest member
weatherman78
Back
Top