Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #16

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Maybe....maybe not. I don't really think KR would throw his client under the bus like that...but then I don't think most people would, just because I wouldn't. But, there's all kinds.

It's not really throwing him under the bus, per se, as it is not a negative statement. It's quite professional... it just seems to be missing an ounce of confidence, and minus a pinch of protection. He could have stopped at we haven't seen everything.

He could just be brutally honest. I guess time will tell.

Again, a hard not to like style.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Credit for pre-trial custody: …

Pre-trial custody has no effect on a life sentence, and does not affect when a person can apply for parole. It is sometimes referred to as "dead time". Quoted by Silly Billy

Very interesting....that's not why my "link" said...it's Wiki as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_(Canada)

The comment is in regards to sentence length and not to bail application.

Interesting....it seems that "Links" aren't all that they're cracked up to be...where is Otto and News.Talk? :ufo:

 

[Krystine]

No, an appeal is launched by either side when it loses it's case. Prosecution can appeal an aquitted charge, and defense can appeal a 'guilty' charge. Whoever appeals would have the 'burden of proof' as to why the case should be looked at again.

I've kinda felt that its Part 2 of a trial...just another opportunity to win the case (either side)....usually based on a technicality or something obscure...perhaps something done blatantly wrong in court. Just another kick at the can.

JMO

I must be living a sheltered life b/c I have very little frame of reference for criminal proceedings, appeals, etc.
I realize the prosecution can also file for appeal, but I can't think of any high profile criminal cases where prosecution has done that.
Can anyone name one, off hand?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

It's not really throwing him under the bus, per se, as it is not a negative statement. It's quite professional... it just seems to be missing an ounce of confidence, and minus a pinch of protection. He could have stopped at we haven't seen everything.

He could just be brutally honest. I guess time will tell.

Again, a hard not to like style.

The stated perception/inference of his comment was somewhat negative. I believe the statement was: "The fact he threw the decision in his client's lap could be a distancing of himself from it. Of course he has to take direction from his client, but to state it publicly feels like "Don't look at me. I didn't choose it."


The "perception/inference" above, sounds very much like he's throwing DG under the bus...smoothly, and quietly, but nevertheless....I just took it as KR being non-committal at this point and not that he was giving the "impression" of anything negative toward his client. I don't see anything in KR's statement that suggests he's throwing it in DG's lap. He could merely be saying "it's up to him what he wants to do" when he refers to 'client's direction' because DG may very well not want to be out on bail, not distancing himself from helping his client. I think that's awful. If that's the case, then DG needs another lawyer.

To each his own, we all see things differently.

JMO

 

[Cherchri]

My 2 cents worth on the KR issue...... Since he does not have full disclosure as yet he will be very careful about asserting anything at all. He will have a team scouring all the evidence looking for points of law they can use as a framework for the defence. This will be a tedious, collaborative process. His statement was what I would term "leaving the back door open" (a means of escape if the front door closes). It was exactly the right thing to say and do. It's ambiguity, IMO, leaves us in exactly the position we were in before he said it. Clever.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The stated perception/inference of his comment was somewhat negative. I believe the statement was: "The fact he threw the decision in his client's lap could be a distancing of himself from it. Of course he has to take direction from his client, but to state it publicly feels like "Don't look at me. I didn't choose it."


The "perception/inference" above, sounds very much like he's throwing DG under the bus...smoothly, and quietly, but nevertheless....I just took it as KR being non-committal at this point and not that he was giving the "impression" of anything negative toward his client. I don't see anything in KR's statement that suggests he's throwing it in DG's lap. He could merely be saying "it's up to him what he wants to do" when he refers to 'client's direction' because DG may very well not want to be out on bail, not distancing himself from helping his client. I think that's awful. If that's the case, then DG needs another lawyer.

To each his own, we all see things differently.

JMO

I have no doubt DG will be represented fully, professionally, and vigorously. I'm not saying he's throwing him under the bus... that would be, "I looked at everything, and hell, even I think he's guilty.

Nor am I saying he's distancing himself from his client. He chose to point out to the public he isn't the one to make the decision. I'm only saying it's an interesting choice to put the qualifier in the sentence.

We'll look at the evidence, and decide from there. We haven't seen everything yet, so I can't comment. It's still too early in the process for comment.

If he is just being frank and honest, then I'll be the first to applaud. It's something I wish we would see more of.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

My 2 cents worth on the KR issue...... Since he does not have full disclosure as yet he will be very careful about asserting anything at all. He will have a team scouring all the evidence looking for points of law they can use as a framework for the defence. This will be a tedious, collaborative process. His statement was what I would term "leaving the back door open" (a means of escape if the front door closes). It was exactly the right thing to say and do. It's ambiguity, IMO, leaves us in exactly the position we were in before he said it. Clever.

Precisely. It could just be well honed skill. It comes across as very honest, to the point, and not grandstanding. It's exactly the low key, dry, to the point response this case requires. I would think anything even slightly inflammatory wouldn't be in his client's interest. We were all commenting on how little coverage this received the night before the appearance...

 

[Slebby]

This could also be strategy: if KR requests bail and the judge denies it because he might see the accused as a threat to the public, or the nature of evidence in disclosure or if suspect is a flight risk.

A bail denial would look very bad for DG and paint him as not innocent. If bail is declined the public/potential jury might have a negative perception of him. Asking for bail might be a big risk. Just thoughts...

I agree.
And I really believe that if he asked for bail, he would be denied. For one thing, he has a criminal record, not just for one or two little juvenile mistakes, but a consistent track record of disregard for the law. I think the worst strike against him is the fact he has already demonstrated a disrespect for his bail conditions, which he carried out for 7 years under a false identity. That's not nothing. IMO, a judge will find that history very compelling, and conclude DG is a flight risk, regardless of the weight of the evidence in this case.

IMHO

 

[news.talk]

Precisely. It could just be well honed skill. It comes across as very honest, to the point, and not grandstanding. It's exactly the low key, dry, to the point response this case requires. I would think anything even slightly inflammatory wouldn't be in his client's interest. We were all commenting on how little coverage this received the night before the appearance...

I have had the pleasure of dealing with KR professionally and socially, and he is truly all those things you have mentioned. He is VERY careful, thorough and thoughtful about his cases and I have yet to see him grandstand, pander to the media or have outlandish defences. Everything is VERY professional with him, even personally. He can seem a tad scattered at times but I attribute that to a heavy case load which he always seems to have.

Is he the *best* Criminal Defence Lawyer in the city? No, but he is solid. I personally think client and council are well matched for this case.

If I thought DG was wrongly accused and being railroaded, I might not pick KR as the best choice to defend him. With what appears to be a confident case by the Crown, I think he will do a good job.

Time will tell.

MOO.

 

[deugirtni]

Absolutely, two way street. I think the prosecution side is a little more responsible however, irt the cost vs the likelihood of getting their guilty verdict with a new trial. (MOO).

Crown prosecutors may appeal an acquittal or, in the case of a conviction, ask an appeal court to increase the offender's sentence. An offender may appeal a conviction or ask an appeal court to decrease their sentence.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/guide/seck.html

Can the prosecution apply for an appeal if a not guilty verdict is made but the trial was not handled properly?

There is a granted appeal right now in North Carolina for a Canadian charged with murdering his wife based on the fact the judge turned down one of the defence's witnesses because he had trouble determining if witness was an expert in the field the defence was claiming he was an expert in. Although I think the husband is guilty, I do feel he deserves a fair trial. Scary thought though, that husband could walk free if next jury finds him not guilty.

 

[deugirtni]

April 22, 1985: Guy Paul Morin is charged with first-degree murder.
Feb. 7, 1986: Mr. Morin is acquitted.
June 5, 1987: Ontario Court of Appeal orders new trial.
Nov. 17, 1988: Supreme Court of Canada agrees with Ontario Appeal Court.
July 30, 1992: Mr. Morin is convicted of first-degree murder.
Jan. 23, 1995: Mr. Morin is acquitted by Ontario Court of Appeal.
Sept. 3, 1996: Public inquiry into wrongful conviction begins.

(BBM)

http://injusticebusters.org/index.htm/Morin.htm

I must be living a sheltered life b/c I have very little frame of reference for criminal proceedings, appeals, etc.
I realize the prosecution can also file for appeal, but I can't think of any high profile criminal cases where prosecution has done that.
Can anyone name one, off hand?

 

[deugirtni]

It is funny/interesting.. on the night before, right up until very LATE in the night, I was looking all over for a note regarding the upcoming court appearance - there was absolutely nothing, not one word, not from any media site. Then..... suddenly the next morning.. a bunch of posts appeared saying that DG would be making a court appearance.. and I believe that at least some of the posts I saw, were actually backdated to say they were posted way earlier than they were actually posted. I wonder if there is some kind of time lag between posting and actually appearing on the www ??

Precisely. It could just be well honed skill. It comes across as very honest, to the point, and not grandstanding. It's exactly the low key, dry, to the point response this case requires. I would think anything even slightly inflammatory wouldn't be in his client's interest. We were all commenting on how little coverage this received the night before the appearance...

 

[deugirtni]

I am curious to know how you can say that you think KR will do a good job, but that at the same time, if DG was actually innocent, he may not be the best choice to defend him. To me that is totally contradictory, given that KR IS the defence lawyer. Why would an accused want a lawyer who would do a good job IF he is guilty? That doesn't make sense, IMHO. I would want a lawyer who would do a great job in proving my innocence. The defence lawyer's skill shouldn't be based on what you, as an individual with your own personal opinion, feels the guilt or innocence of the accused might be, should it?

I have had the pleasure of dealing with KR professionally and socially, and he is truly all those things you have mentioned. He is VERY careful, thorough and thoughtful about his cases and I have yet to see him grandstand, pander to the media or have outlandish defences. Everything is VERY professional with him, even personally. He can seem a tad scattered at times but I attribute that to a heavy case load which he always seems to have.

Is he the *best* Criminal Defence Lawyer in the city? No, but he is solid. I personally think client and council are well matched for this case.

If I thought DG was wrongly accused and being railroaded, I might not pick KR as the best choice to defend him. With what appears to be a confident case by the Crown, I think he will do a good job.

Time will tell.

MOO.

 

[news.talk]

I am curious to know how you can say that you think KR will do a good job, but that at the same time, if DG was actually innocent, he may not be the best choice to defend him. To me that is totally contradictory, given that KR IS the defence lawyer. Why would an accused want a lawyer who would do a good job IF he is guilty? That doesn't make sense, IMHO. I would want a lawyer who would do a great job in proving my innocence. The defence lawyer's skill shouldn't be based on what you, as an individual with your own personal opinion, feels the guilt or innocence of the accused might be, should it?

I was just stating my personal observations in response to his style and character.

What I was referring too, is their temperaments seem well matched. If I thought DG was wrongly accused (which I really don't) I would worry that KR might not be aggressive enough in his approach. That's not saying he is less than competent, far from it, but his methodical, quiet style might not be enough.

I am basing this on MY opinion on his guilt. Merely an observational opinion.

 

[Krystine]

(BBM)

http://injusticebusters.org/index.htm/Morin.htm

Thanks for digging that up. The book you linked to deals with incompetent cops, defence attorneys in over their heads and misguided prosecutors in the case of Guy Paul Morin...not the finest hour for the judicial system.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I was just stating my personal observations in response to his style and character.

What I was referring too, is their temperaments seem well matched. If I thought DG was wrongly accused (which I really don't) I would worry that KR might not be aggressive enough in his approach. That's not saying he is less than competent, far from it, but his methodical, quiet style might not be enough.

I am basing this on MY opinion on his guilt. Merely an observational opinion.

I find the temperament perspective/potential requirement of counsel very interesting. In my experience, and in my opinion, those with true power don't require aggression....they are strong, and solid and pack a punch that no one sees coming. For instance, hypothetically speaking, lets say DG is not guilty. How much more impact would KR have had presenting the case in a non-aggressive way, vs. an aggressive way. Quiet, even-keeled, no big statements, no grand gestures...and whack! Not guilty! There would be some pretty big shock value there, and KR would be seen as the defense lawyer to have because you would never know what was coming. As a matter of fact, when one is not aggressive and stands in the face of adversity, cool, calm and collected...it usually has an unsettling effect on the other side. I admire the lawyers that know the law and know that they don't have to jump up and down and pound their fist to make their point. All they have to be is knowledgeable, strategic and quick-thinkers. This is all just my opinion. I like DG's lawyer. The only other type that would be equally if not more effective, would be a seemingly 'bumbling' one...throws the opposition off their game.

 

[news.talk]

I find the temperament perspective/potential requirement of counsel very interesting. In my experience, and in my opinion, those with true power don't require aggression....they are strong, and solid and pack a punch that no one sees coming. For instance, hypothetically speaking, lets say DG is not guilty. How much more impact would KR have had presenting the case in a non-aggressive way, vs. an aggressive way. Quiet, even-keeled, no big statements, no grand gestures...and whack! Not guilty! There would be some pretty big shock value there, and KR would be seen as the defense lawyer to have because you would never know what was coming. As a matter of fact, when one is not aggressive and stands in the face of adversity, cool, calm and collected...it usually has an unsettling effect on the other side. I admire the lawyers that know the law and know that they don't have to jump up and down and pound their fist to make their point. All they have to be is knowledgeable, strategic and quick-thinkers. This is all just my opinion. I like DG's lawyer. The only other type that would be equally if not more effective, would be a seemingly 'bumbling' one...throws the opposition off their game.

I agree. I also think that there needs to be a good match between client, council and case.

This case is based on presumably technical evidence. It sounds like the 'volumes' of evidence requires a methodical lawyer that will carefully explore each piece, as opposed to a showman type that might try to blind the jury/judge with dazzling B.S.

With an emotional public involvement due to the large scale media presence and nature of the crime, a thorough, unpretentious defence serves this client best IMO. If one if the more flamboyant, media pandering lawyers were defending this case, the client's interests might not be best represented.

Don't get me wrong, some cases and clients NEED that loud, flamboyant lawyer for their best defence. IMO, this isn't one if them.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I am curious to know how you can say that you think KR will do a good job, but that at the same time, if DG was actually innocent, he may not be the best choice to defend him. To me that is totally contradictory, given that KR IS the defence lawyer. Why would an accused want a lawyer who would do a good job IF he is guilty? That doesn't make sense, IMHO. I would want a lawyer who would do a great job in proving my innocence. The defence lawyer's skill shouldn't be based on what you, as an individual with your own personal opinion, feels the guilt or innocence of the accused might be, should it?

Your representation is every bit as individual, as the representative. There are also factors to consider like experience, resources, depth of knowledge, and even public speaking ability... among many factors that influence how your case is presented, and how it is received.

Let's take the hypothetical that DG was railroaded. Given that we now know there is a large amount of "lab results" (DNA) you would want a law team experienced in refuting that type of evidence, with the connections to the experts that will testify on your behalf. The trial lawyer would need to be well versed in the law, and in DNA to put on a proper case, especially during cross examination of Crown expert witnesses.

An NCR case is completely different, and would best be left to those who have more experience with mental illness cases.

There is so much that influences a decision. Cherchri's description of the judge was one of upbeat and engaging... there are also those that are the opposite.

For anyone who has not attended a court session, I highly advise you go sit in the gallery if you ever have a day off. You will be shocked at the mill-like efficiency, and the cast of characters that come through. There are those you'll have sympathy for, those you will snicker at, and always one lawyer in an ugly tweed jacket that'll make you wonder how they became a lawyer.

Guilt or innocence is not an exact science, and unfortunately, the truth is only what you can prove.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I have had the pleasure of dealing with KR professionally and socially, and he is truly all those things you have mentioned. He is VERY careful, thorough and thoughtful about his cases and I have yet to see him grandstand, pander to the media or have outlandish defences. Everything is VERY professional with him, even personally. He can seem a tad scattered at times but I attribute that to a heavy case load which he always seems to have.

Is he the *best* Criminal Defence Lawyer in the city? No, but he is solid. I personally think client and council are well matched for this case.

If I thought DG was wrongly accused and being railroaded, I might not pick KR as the best choice to defend him. With what appears to be a confident case by the Crown, I think he will do a good job.

Time will tell.

MOO.

I wonder how DG is treating his lawyer? I'm curious if he's respectful and obedient, arrogant and aloof, aggressive and harsh or quiet?! KR sounds like a very respected man like you say, and I wonder how patient and professional he'd be if DG was disrespectful at all or if KR has a limit before he would drop a client.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I wonder how DG is treating his lawyer? I'm curious if he's respectful and obedient, arrogant and aloof, aggressive and harsh or quiet?! KR sounds like a very respected man like you say, and I wonder how patient and professional he'd be if DG was disrespectful at all or if KR has a limit before he would drop a client.

Indeed.