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

[ILoveDateline]

Millard is due in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice tomorrow at 10:00 am at 361 University Ave.
R v Millard.

CR-16-50000176-0000

AC tweet said done for the day. I wonder if he meant week? DM can't be in two places at once.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[mozzagirl]

AC tweet said done for the day. I wonder if he meant week? DM can't be in two places at once.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

A second reporter also said they will just be done for the day. They will continue deliberations tomorrow.

It might be a simple matter that just his lawyer can attend to.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Believe R vs would be the crown. Perhaps the WM case?

 

[ILoveDateline]

A second reporter also said they will just be done for the day. They will continue deliberations tomorrow.

It might be a simple matter that just his lawyer can attend to.

His case appearance tomorrow is listed as "to be spoken to". I wonder what that is about??

Maybe it has to do with a jailhouse infraction, like getting written up at work, he is to be spoken to. And then I laugh at your second post about sending a lawyer in his stead, "be a good lawyer, go get my verbal lashing, will you?" JMO.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Believe R vs would be the crown. Perhaps the WM case?

I was thinking for WM or LB. LB'S trial is in Toronto, so I'm assuming WM case will be in Toronto court as well.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Maybe it has to do with a jailhouse infraction, like getting written up at work, he is to be spoken to. And then I laugh at your second post about sending a lawyer in his stead, "be a good lawyer, go get my verbal lashing, will you?" JMO.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

I couldn't find the page but seeing as OP linked to Toronto courts, I don't think a jailhouse issue would be dealt with there but rather in Hamilton where he's being held.

 

[Arnie M]

Interesting. What were your impressions of him at that point in time?

I know a Lot more than I can get into here ... but back then he was fairly new in the military , acted very military but kinda geeky , sorta "British" (He had spent time there) ie: always a proper walk and posture and composure ... he was looking at a Collector-British car I was restoring ... I also know where his weird fetishes originated (his youth) and how he learned to kill without conscience.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Re: Millard's appearance tomorrow - there was another case (theft?) that he was named in but I cannot recall the details. I believe JV was connected to that one as well. The woman's name that filed charges was on one of the folders on DM's computer when it was seized.

ETA: Found it, but it appears that was closed/resolved so that's not it.

 

[musicaljoke]

His case appearance tomorrow is listed as "to be spoken to". I wonder what that is about??

You'd think that tomorrow's appearance could be rescheduled instead of suspending this trial.

 

[mozzagirl]

I am not sure I can link to this but I found a link that explains "To Be Spoken To" in Ontario courts. Mods please let me know if I am wrong in posting this. I couldn't find an official government site or anything that had an explanation except this site.

http://trialcounsel.ca/to-be-spoken-to-court-in-toronto/

To be or not to be spoken to Court: why do parties wind up at To Be Spoken To (TBST) Court?

1. Difficult or uncooperative parties;
2. Uninformed parties;
3. Legal strategy; or possibly
4. The inability to settle.

 

[SomeITGuy]

Re: Millard's appearance tomorrow - there was another case (theft?) that he was named in but I cannot recall the details. I believe JV was connected to that one as well. The woman's name that filed charges was on one of the folders on DM's computer when it was seized.

ETA: Found it, but it appears that was closed/resolved so that's not it.

Here it is

 

[JuneBug67]

You'd think that tomorrow's appearance could be rescheduled instead of suspending this trial.

I doubt that that scheduling will affect this trial. 'To be Spoken To' is almost always one of those run-of-the-mill appearances that only mean the case is neither at the beginning or at the end, but somewhere in the process. Usually only a lawyer need appear, and the court is updated on whatever might be relevant, and then another date is set for the future. There's usually a bunch of 'To Be Spoken To' appearances in any court. Even minor things often take months to years to wind their way through.

 

[Bellers]

You'd think that tomorrow's appearance could be rescheduled instead of suspending this trial.

According to Adam Carter the scheduling issue is only that the jury got their lunch late and so will be eating dinner late as well.

 

[Canadian4]

Does anyone know how many hours they have been deliberating taking into account lunches, breaks, hospital visits etc. Just curious, not going anywhere with it.

 

[Elisabeth]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think judge Goodman said he didn't think there were two guns, I think what he said was something along the lines of telling the jury to disregard that because of lack of evidence of a second gun. I mean, he saw the picture himself of the TWO guns, and the second one was redacted for a reason. So, the judge knows there are or were two guns, but all the technical legal stuff has to be applied.

and by lack of evidence, he means he caused there to be lack of evidence

(I'm not saying without strong legal principle/purpose, it's just i don't understand that purpose ...)

 

[Ontario Mom]

Here it is

That was the one I was thinking of but it appears it was settled. Did I misread?

 

[CJPRINCESS]

That was the one I was thinking of but it appears it was settled. Did I misread?

But was that a criminal case? I thought it was small claims court for the DM/JV case?

The one for tomorrow is under the criminal division.

 

[SomeITGuy]

That was the one I was thinking of but it appears it was settled. Did I misread?

I believe you are correct, it was small claims and settled. Applicant paid plaintiff's legal bills if I understand correctly (no legal background)..

 

[JuneBug67]

and by lack of evidence, he means he caused there to be lack of evidence

(I'm not saying without strong legal principle/purpose, it's just i don't understand that purpose ...)

My guess would be that it meant lack of evidence in this case that two guns were used. We had one casing only, and no evidence that more than one shot was fired. I think it's probably both legally (as if I'd actually know!) and logically the correct decision. Imagine there were three guns as per MS's 'multiple guns' statement in voir dire. Let's say one is confiscated with WM, and one was stolen from a bag in Millard's house as per MM in voir dire. That would leave one. In that scenario, and others, it would have been misleading for the jury to see two guns. IMO it's not like they've been shielded from anything critical. Both defendants had photographs with the gun, the jury knows it was purchased by DM, MS raps about 'his' .380 and so on. As Goodman said, the jury doesn't even need to figure out who shot the gun if they agree they were acting in concert. So it would have added little but grounds for appeal IMO.

 

[Typhoo1961]

AC tweet said done for the day. I wonder if he meant week? DM can't be in two places at once.

The jury can deliberate even with DM absent. If they happen to come to verdict while he is out they will hold the verdict until he gets back.