Canadian hostage, wife & children freed from Afghanistan, husband arrested for abuse, Oct 2017 #2

[Intermezzo]

If / when the trial proceeds, IMO Boyle's counsel will likely argue that some of her public statements are highly prejudicial to his client and request a mistrial. But, as the trial is judge-only, the argument could be unsuccessful. Although I have great sympathy for CC, these interviews seem very unwise.

Not sure if or how it will affect the trial once it resumes.
She had not finished testifying before the court, she was still being cross examined by the defense when the trial got sidetracked.

Caitlin, did ask the court to lift the publication ban that protected her identity at the start of the trial and it was granted.
A publication ban remains in place for the 2nd victim.


CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD: Caitlan Coleman should confine her testimony to witness box | The Telegram

It was on April 3, the last day of evidence before the trial was side-tracked by legal arguments, that Ontario Court Judge Peter Doody warned her about this.

“You did not complete your evidence,” Doody told her, “but in all the circumstances, you can return home (to the United States).

“You’re going to be able to (continue) on video,” he said, referring to an arrangement, agreed to by Boyle’s defence team, that would see Coleman testify long-distance.

As the main caregiver of four young children, with her mother and sister the prosecutor’s next anticipated witnesses, travelling to and from the Ottawa court and particularly, arranging for child care in their absence, was difficult for her.

But then Doody said, according to my imperfect notes, “Because you’re a witness, you’re not allowed to talk about the evidence with any other witness in the case.”

I thought at the time that it was a pointed reminder she wasn’t to speak about the case with her relatives. I have no notes of Doody reminding her, in general, not to otherwise speak about the case, but he might have — I have heard this caution so many times I sometimes don’t write it down — and in any event, it was certainly implied.

 

[Gunslinging Granny]

If / when the trial proceeds, IMO Boyle's counsel will likely argue that some of her public statements are highly prejudicial to his client and request a mistrial. But, as the trial is judge-only, the argument could be unsuccessful. Although I have great sympathy for CC, these interviews seem very unwise.

Caitlyn has several attorneys some of whom are associated with a powerful women's advocate group. There's a good reason for why she's doing interviews now. Although she'd like to see him punished for his illegal and immoral behavior, her primary concern is likely whether he's ever given visitation or custody of her children. If Joshua Boyle isn't found guilty in this trial, he will immediately use judicial methods to silence Caitlyn from discussing his grotesque physical, mental and sexual behaviors. Caitlyn must tell her story now. By informing the public of his disturbing thoughts and behaviors, she's influencing the public's perception of him. This could influence future custody and visitation battles.

 

[nuff]

. By informing the public of his disturbing thoughts and behaviors, she's influencing the public's perception of him. This could influence future custody and visitation battles.

Given that custody / visitation are not determined by the public, this seems unlikely. Introducing new information that hasn't yet been presented (or cross-examined) in the criminal trial (if it ever resumes) still seems like a risky strategy, IMO.

 

[Intermezzo]

BREAKING NEWS

JUNE 11, 2019
Joshua Boyle defence allowed to question Caitlan Coleman about her sexual history, judge rules


Joshua Boyle defence allowed to question Caitlan Coleman about her sexual history, judge rules June 11, 2019

Ontario Superior Court Justice Ronald Laliberté decided to exercise his discretion and not review the trial judge’s decision to allow a limited series of sex-related questions.

Allowing a victim to interrupt a criminal trial to bring such an application, he said, could result in the kind of court delays that the Supreme Court denounced in R. v. Jordan. But the Jordan decision, Laliberté said, did not offer any guidance about how a court should assess those delays since the victim is not bound to follow the principles of that decision.

What’s more, the judge noted, a trial is ultimately a contest between an accused person and the state.

“The court is of the view that the trial judge was correct in finding that the proposed evidence is relevant to an issue at trial,” he said.

Boyle’s lawyer contends the alleged incidents of sexual violence did not happen, and that Coleman is consciously or unconsciously recalling consensual acts that she now considers non-consensual.

Coleman has already admitted on two occasions in her evidence that she might be confusing memories.

 

[Intermezzo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joshua-boyle-caitlan-coleman-1.5171646 June 11, 2019

Court allows Joshua Boyle's lawyers to introduce wife's sexual history as evidence
Social Sharing

In his 21-page ruling, Laliberté determined a mid-trial application was not the appropriate way to challenge the trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of a victim's sexual history.

Laliberté wrote that Coleman's lawyer had an opportunity to raise concerns about the judge's ruling during a special hearing that was held by the trial judge earlier this year.

Laliberté also ruled the trial judge did not err in allowing Coleman's sexual history to be introduced because Coleman brought it up herself.

Citing the trial judge's ruling, Laliberté referred to several instances while Coleman was on the stand where she seemed unsure about the alleged assaults.

The trial is expected to resume in July.

 

[nuff]

This ruling is troubling in a number of respects.
IMO, Canada seems well behind the UK (on which our justice system is supposedly based.)
Coercive control and the law - Rights of Women

 

[Gunslinging Granny]

Given that custody / visitation are not determined by the public, this seems unlikely. Introducing new information that hasn't yet been presented (or cross-examined) in the criminal trial (if it ever resumes) still seems like a risky strategy, IMO.

While in the United States, a child’s home state has jurisdiction over custody matters. In Pennsylvania, where Caitlyn is likely living near her family, custody and visitation battles are determined by family court judges. They are elected officials. Custody and visitation battles are also influenced by agencies, CYS, that are controlled by the elected county commissioners. Elected officials like to keep their paychecks and benefits, therefore public opinion matters.

The most heated elections in my area are for family court judges. Local news stations are frequently on the scene showing angry family members carrying picket signs against specific family court judges.

Caitlyn experienced ghastly horrors as Joshua Boyle's wife. She had to tell her horror story about Josh because public opinion could someday indirectly protect her children from him.

 

[nuff]

The most heated elections in my area are for family court judges. Local news stations are frequently on the scene showing angry family members carrying picket signs against specific family court judges.

Caitlyn experienced ghastly horrors as Joshua Boyle's wife. She had to tell her horror story about Josh because public opinion could someday indirectly protect her children from him.

Being in Canada, the whole idea of elected judges is totally alien to me. I see what you're saying.

 

[Intermezzo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-case-boyle-coleman-1.5197038 July 2, 2019

New Supreme Court ruling on sexual-history evidence delays Joshua Boyle trial

The sexual-assault trial of former Afghanistan hostage Joshua Boyle is held up this morning while lawyers consider how a new Supreme Court ruling affects the case.

However this morning Judge Peter Doody asked the Crown and defence to consider if a Friday decision by the Supreme Court of Canada had any bearing on sexual-history evidence already given by Coleman during direct testimony in March.

The Supreme Court ordered a new trial for a man acquitted of sexual assault, saying the past sexual relationship between the alleged victim and the accused should not have been entered into evidence and refined the rules for when such evidence is acceptable.

 

[MsFacetious]

Wow....

 

[Intermezzo]

New Supreme Court rulings on sexual-history evidence delays Joshua Boyle trial

New Supreme Court rulings on sexual-history evidence delays Joshua Boyle trial

the cross-examination now won’t happen until at least Wednesday after Judge Peter Doody asked the Crown and defence to consider whether two recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada have any bearing on evidence already given by Coleman during direct testimony in March.

Doody raised six specific things Coleman said in March that he is concerned might now be affected by court decisions delivered since that testimony was given

Doody is hearing arguments from the Crown and defence Tuesday afternoon, and said he’ll deliver a decision as soon as he can about whether the evidence from March he is concerned about will be deemed inadmissible.

Defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon says he cannot cross-examine Coleman until the decision is made because some of his questions would pertain to the evidence now in question.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...dence-delays-joshua-boyle-trial#comments-area

 

[otto]

Caitlyn has several attorneys some of whom are associated with a powerful women's advocate group. There's a good reason for why she's doing interviews now. Although she'd like to see him punished for his illegal and immoral behavior, her primary concern is likely whether he's ever given visitation or custody of her children. If Joshua Boyle isn't found guilty in this trial, he will immediately use judicial methods to silence Caitlyn from discussing his grotesque physical, mental and sexual behaviors. Caitlyn must tell her story now. By informing the public of his disturbing thoughts and behaviors, she's influencing the public's perception of him. This could influence future custody and visitation battles.

Doesn't this assume that he is guilty? Isn't the point in question whether she is remembering consensual acts as forced?

If the courts determine that they had a long history of consensual s and m style sex, what does that mean? Is every individual who engages in s and m style sex during marriage at risk of criminal charges if one party claims the s and m was not consensual during divorce?

 

[Lilibet]

Doesn't this assume that he is guilty? Isn't the point in question whether she is remembering consensual acts as forced?

If the courts determine that they had a long history of consensual s and m style sex, what does that mean? Is every individual who engages in s and m style sex during marriage at risk of criminal charges if one party claims the s and m was not consensual during divorce?

There’s always the possibility that what was once consensual (perhaps prior to the first pregnancy) ceased to be at some point. If so, he should have honored her preference.

 

[otto]

There’s always the possibility that what was once consensual (perhaps prior to the first pregnancy) ceased to be at some point. If so, he should have honored her preference.

That's the question, isn't it? When did consensual s and m become non-consensual, and whether there was a clear communication that consent was withdrawn.

 

[Intermezzo]

New twists to this trial because of Caitlan's 3, according to the article, media interviews.

1) Caitlan may be facing contempt charges for violating the judges order, defense wants tighter restrictions placed on her in regards to speaking about the case
2) Caitlan told the court that her lawyers said it was acceptable to discuss what she discussed in the interviews.So now, Caitlan's lawyer, Ian Carter, might be a witness in the case and has to step back from representing her, she has to get a new lawyer and so does he.

Estranged wife's interviews complicate testimony in Joshua Boyle assault case

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/caitlan-coleman-joshua-boyle-sexual-assault-1.5196786 July 3 2019

On April 3, Judge Peter Doody ordered Coleman not to have any discussions about the evidence she gave, or will give, at trial with any witness or potential witness.

However Greenspon pointed out during the cross-examination that Coleman gave at least three interviews with media outlets in April and May, including an interview with the CBC that aired May 28, and ABC News that aired May 29. She also spoke with the Washington Post but that interview has not yet been published, Greenspon said.

Greenspon said she discussed a number of things in those interviews that were part of the evidence she'd already given, including how she and Boyle met, how the couple came to be in Afghanistan before they were taken hostage, some of the things that happened while they were in captivity, and some of the controls Boyle placed on her after they returned to Ottawa following their release.

That's when Coleman said "my understanding from my lawyers was these were acceptable things to discuss."

Greenspon told the court he had never expected Coleman to say she had given the interviews after receiving approval from her lawyers, and the answer stopped the trial in its tracks.

There are now questions to be worked out about whether Coleman waived solicitor-client privilege when she volunteered that she sought advice from her lawyers before giving the interviews, as well as the issue of whether or not she violated the judge's order.

Coleman's lawyer, Ian Carter, might now become a witness in the case and stepped back from representing her, though he would not say if he had fully removed himself. He is obtaining his own counsel to represent him in the case where he might become a witness, and Doody advised Coleman that she should obtain a new lawyer to get advice about the situation.

Greenspon asked Doody to issue a tighter order to Coleman not to speak to anyone about anything to do with the case at all.

"I just don't want to see more media interviews between now and the time that her testimony is complete," Greenspon said. "I don't see it as a gag order but rather as an order to preserve the integrity of the proceedings, which have already been demonstrated to have been — I'll use the word 'challenged.'

 

[Intermezzo]

Bondage 'revolting,' estranged wife tells Joshua Boyle's sex-assault trial

Bondage 'revolting,' estranged wife tells Joshua Boyle's sex-assault trial July 3 2019

Defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon tried to get her to clarify earlier testimony that Boyle had forced her to take sleeping pills that a doctor had prescribed for him. Greenspon asked her over and over if she agreed that Boyle wasn't trying to force her to commit suicide and was just trying to get her to go to sleep.

"I don't believe he was forcing me to suicide," she told the court, testifying via a video link. "I think that, well, it's speculation, but I think that if he wanted me dead, then I would be dead."

The defence position is that the alleged sexual violence did not happen and that Coleman is describing acts between her and Boyle that were consensual but is, deliberately or not, adding features to make those activities appear non-consensual.

Greenspon on Wednesday asked her whether the couple had consensual sex in December 2017 in an attempt to have another baby. Coleman said yes, but added that Boyle "told me we were to have another child."

Greenspon also posed questions about the dates of the alleged assaults. He raised notes from a psychologist Coleman met with in January 2018, which say Coleman told the psychologist Boyle's assaults had stopped for three months after they were released from captivity.

Coleman denied ever telling the psychologist that, saying that when the appointment happened it hadn't even been three months since their release.

Greenspon resumed his cross-examination of Coleman Wednesday, a day later than anticipated, after Judge Peter Doody raised concerns that the admissibility of evidence she had given in direct testimony in March might be affected by two Supreme Court decisions released since then.

After hearing arguments from the Crown and defence and Coleman's lawyer Wednesday morning, Doody said he was confident the evidence was admissible and the cross-examination could proceed.

 

[human]

This sounds like a total mess.

 

[otto]

The trial is a complete mess, and the evidence is full of contradiction. I do wondering if this was about getting custody of the children and taking them out of the country.

"She completely disregarded that instruction," said Greenspon in the courtroom. "She demonstrated that, she, in my submission, has no respect for the spirit if not the letter of Your Honour's order."​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/caitlan-coleman-joshua-boyle-sexual-assault-1.5196786

 

[Intermezzo]

Complainant revealed in court Wednesday her lawyer told her it was OK to do media interviews

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/coleman-lawyer-boyle-trial-1.5199801 JULY 4, 2019

The sexual assault trial in Ottawa of former Afghanistan hostage Joshua Boyle has hit another bump, with the lawyer for the complainant stepping aside at least temporarily as he may have to testify.

Before the court determines if Carter will have to testify it needs to establish whether Coleman waived on the stand her solicitor-client privilege — a common law concept that protects communication between a lawyer and their client because it is private.

The defence believes Coleman waived her privilege when she said during testimony Wednesday her lawyer approved the interviews. Consequently, Greenspon said, her consent was implied. Greenspon added no lawyer would advise a witness still giving evidence that it was OK to do media interviews.

"What we have here is the credibility of a highly experienced and well respected lawyer being invoked to assist Ms. Coleman's position," Greenspon said. "In the circumstances her privilege has been waived."

Coleman's new lawyer said she didn't knowingly waive her solicitor-client privilege and it was an "inadvertent" omission. Krongold said his client could not be expected to understand the complexities of the law, and she didn't knowingly and voluntarily waive her privilege.

The judge reserved his decision to a later, unspecified date.

 

[Intermezzo]

Joshua Boyle’s lawyer says alleged victim lied to the court about legal advice

Joshua Boyle’s lawyer says alleged victim lied to the court about legal advice

Ms. Coleman, who was testifying via a video link, told him she only gave limited information that did not include anything about the alleged criminal acts that are the subject of the charges against Mr. Boyle. And she said she only did the interviews after she checked with her family and lawyers to make sure it was allowed.

Greenspon said Thursday he does not believe Ms. Coleman actually was told by her lawyers that it was OK to do the interviews.

“It would be my submission that no competent lawyer would provide that advice to Ms. Coleman,” he said.

Ms. Coleman’s credibility as a witness is central to the defence’s assertion that she is inserting evidence into accounts of consensual sexual acts that occurred between her and Mr. Boyle, to make them appear non-consensual.