London, Ontario-Canada: Five former players from Canada's junior national teame on trial for sexual assault

[CaptRenault]

The CBC has done a thorough job of reporting on the trial. It provides live updates during days when the trial is going on and at least one article after the finish of each day's proceedings. Here is an article about Friday's proceedings:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/livestory/recap-woman-says-defence-s-questions-in-world-junior-sex-assault-trial-are-an-attempt-to-discredit-her-9.6754418

One unusual feature of the trial is that the complainant is not testifying in person in court. She is being questioned by defense lawyers who are in court and she responds to the questions on video from some other location (it's not clear where she is located-in the courthouse or somewhere else?). Canadian law, like American law, does require that the accused be able to "confront" or face his/her accuser in court. However, Canadian law also allows some individuals such as a child or a "vulnerable adult," such as a disabled person, to testify on video.

I don't know whether such a privilege is granted to all complainants in case of sexual assault or if this case is atypical. While it may be stressful for the complainant to testify, it's also stressful for the accused players (who are presumed innocent at this point) to be accused of a crime and to go through a trial. I think everyone should be in court. If the complainant did not want to go to court then she should have told the police in 2022 that she would not cooperate with their investigation.

 

[aajimo]

The CBC has done a thorough job of reporting on the trial. It provides live updates during days when the trial is going on and at least one article after the finish of each day's proceedings. Here is an article about Friday's proceedings:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/livestory/recap-woman-says-defence-s-questions-in-world-junior-sex-assault-trial-are-an-attempt-to-discredit-her-9.6754418

One unusual feature of the trial is that the complainant is not testifying in person in court. She is being questioned by defense lawyers who are in court and she responds to the questions on video from some other location (it's not clear where she is located-in the courthouse or somewhere else?). Canadian law, like American law, does require that the accused be able to "confront" or face his/her accuser in court. However, Canadian law also allows some individuals such as a child or a "vulnerable adult," such as a disabled person, to testify on video.

I don't know whether such a privilege is granted to all complainants in case of sexual assault or if this case is atypical. While it may be stressful for the complainant to testify, it's also stressful for the accused players (who are presumed innocent at this point) to be accused of a crime and to go through a trial. I think everyone should be in court. If the complainant did not want to go to court then she should have told the police in 2022 that she would not cooperate with s

The CBC has done a thorough job of reporting on the trial. It provides live updates during days when the trial is going on and at least one article after the finish of each day's proceedings. Here is an article about Friday's proceedings:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/livestory/recap-woman-says-defence-s-questions-in-world-junior-sex-assault-trial-are-an-attempt-to-discredit-her-9.6754418

One unusual feature of the trial is that the complainant is not testifying in person in court. She is being questioned by defense lawyers who are in court and she responds to the questions on video from some other location (it's not clear where she is located-in the courthouse or somewhere else?). Canadian law, like American law, does require that the accused be able to "confront" or face his/her accuser in court. However, Canadian law also allows some individuals such as a child or a "vulnerable adult," such as a disabled person, to testify on video.

I don't know whether such a privilege is granted to all complainants in case of sexual assault or if this case is atypical. While it may be stressful for the complainant to testify, it's also stressful for the accused players (who are presumed innocent at this point) to be accused of a crime and to go through a trial. I think everyone should be in court. If the complainant did not want to go to court then she should have told the police in 2022 that she would not cooperate with their investigation.

Sometimes people appear virtually from another room in the courthouse or another court via videolink. Victims of certain types of alleged crimes like sexual assault, intimate partner violence, etc can get approval for that but it’s up the judge in each individual case.

Remember, there is a publication ban on the victim’s identity and these proceedings have attracted a large amount of public attention. It could be hard for her to get in and out of the courtroom every day without a significant number of people seeing her. That was a likely a factor too.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Years ago I was waiting to be picked for a jury here in Toronto. The case ahead of mine was of a young girl, I think in her teens, who accused a man of sexual assault. She completely shut down when she was on the stand and they had to throw out the charges. So I wonder if things have changed in a situation like this?

 

[aajimo]

Years ago I was waiting to be picked for a jury here in Toronto. The case ahead of mine was of a young girl, I think in her teens, who accused a man of sexual assault. She completely shut down when she was on the stand and they had to throw out the charges. So I wonder if things have changed in a situation like this?

Yes, I believe this is the main reason they allow victims of certain types of alleged crimes to appear virtually— it reduces the chances of them shutting down in fear.

Also, they have generally been more lax with virtual appearances since COVID in my opinion. It’s cheap and it allows people to participate easier.

Before virtual appearances were common, I’ve seen they would sometimes provide a screen/barrier so they can be physically in the courtroom but their view of the accused is blocked.

 

[CaptRenault]

The more that I read about this trial, the more I feel that there is reasonable doubt about the Crown's case against the defendants. The complainant is not a great witness for the Crown. It would be interesting to hear the defendants' side of the story but it seems doubtful that they will testify. This article from the local paper in London provides a good summary of Friday's court proceedings.

Hockey Canada trial: Defence, complainant spar as new messages surface

LIVE: Hockey Canada trial continues on Friday

lfpress.com

 

[missy1974]

The more that I read about this trial, the more I feel that there is reasonable doubt about the Crown's case against the defendants. The complainant is not a great witness for the Crown. It would be interesting to hear the defendants' side of the story but it seems doubtful that they will testify. This article from the local paper in London provides a good summary of Friday's court proceedings.

Hockey Canada trial: Defence, complainant spar as new messages surface

LIVE: Hockey Canada trial continues on Friday

lfpress.com

I was reading the updates this week... it does seem like there may be reasonable doubt. Hard to say what is missed in those updates and the emotion/visual of her words.

I am Canadian, and I appreciate our system but I prefer to watch trials for myself, but we don't have that option here

Will try to keep up with reading the updates!

 

[CaptRenault]

Both sides (prosecution and defense) have finished questioning the complainant, "E.M." The trial has moved on to other witnesses, starting with Tyler Steenbergen, a teammate who was in the room part of the time when the sexual encounters took place but he did not participate and he was not charged.

According to the CBC's report of Wednesday's trial proceedings:

Steenbergan says he, Dubé and Bean [other team members] went to McLeod’s room and saw teammates Sam Steele, Carter Hart, Max Comtois, Drake Batherson, Brett Howden, Alex Formenton and McLeod.

Steenbergen says that when he went to sit down at the desk at the far side of the room, he heard someone say, “Guys, there’s a naked girl in the bathroom.”

He testifies he was shocked to learn that. Soon after, he says, a naked woman came out of the bathroom.

“She went onto the floor and started masturbating and asked guys to come have sex with her,” Steenbergen says. “She said, ‘Can one of you guys come over and f–k me?’”

That’s when Hart got oral sex from her, Steenbergen says, and it lasted for about 30 seconds or a minute.

“He unbuckled his belt and pulled [his pants] down toward his knees.”

Steenbergen says that while this was happening, he was trying to have a conversation with someone else, so wasn’t paying much attention.

After that, Steenbergen says, he remembers the woman saying, “You guys are being ” and then he remembers McLeod “getting a ” in a similar manner to Hart.

Witnesses like Steenbergen and others are the wild card in this trial. They could make a big difference in a case that is basically a "She said, he (they) said" case. So far, Steenbergen's testimony favors the defense.

Here's an article from the London Ontario Free Press about Wednesday's trial proceedings:

Hockey Canada trial: Witness testifies woman asked players to have sex

The complainant whose allegations are at the core of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial will continue testifying on Wednesday

lfpress.com

 

[CaptRenault]

In a surprising move, the judge decided to dismiss the jury and continue as a “judge-alone trial.”

From cbc.com:

Trial to continue with judge alone​

Mark Gollom
The proceedings will continue with what’s known as a judge-alone trial.

This means Justice Maria Carroccia will determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

The defence and the Crown have both agreed to the proceedings before only a judge.

 

[CaptRenault]

Now that the trial is proceeding with no jury and the verdict is up to the judge alone, the press can reveal more details about some aspects of the trial, including why the judge dismissed the jury (both sides, Crown prosecutors and defense counsel agreed to the decision).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/world-junior-hockey-trial-what-jury-did-not-hear-1.7536599

...The latest courtroom turn of events happened Thursday, when a note was sent to the judge by a juror in the trial that got underway in late April. The note outlined concerns that Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding, lawyers representing Formenton, appeared "every day" to be whispering to each other and laughing "as if they are discussing our [jurors'] appearance" as they entered the courtroom.

"This is unprofessional and unacceptable," the note said.

After speaking, all five defence teams asked for a mistrial or for the jury to be discharged and the case to proceed with just a judge. The lawyers cited perceived "prejudice" that the jurors might have against the defence and the "chilling effect" on those lawyers, who were worried to "zealously" defend their clients lest their gestures be misinterpreted by the jury.

Assistant Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham argued that jurors could be asked if they could set aside any impressions they may have formed of the defence lawyers and given instructions reminding them to only consider the evidence before them, and to put out of their minds any negative ideas about Brown and Dudding.

Carroccia ruled Friday, after taking the evening to consider the options, that the trial would proceed with her oversight alone.

Because Carroccia let the jury go, the publication ban on anything heard without the jury present has now lifted, so we are able to report more of what happened since proceedings began and a jury was chosen in late April.

Lawyers for Formenton issue statement​

Although both the Crown and defence agreed to the jury's discharge and for the judge-only proceedings, the decision drew swift reaction from lawyers for Formenton.

"We are not in the habit of making public statements during a trial, and this is likely to be the only time we do so in this case," said a letter sent from Brown to the media on behalf of his client's legal team.

The letter said discharging the jury "was a regrettable development" for Formenton, and noted, "He had very much wanted to be tried by a jury of his peers and has now lost that opportunity.

"We, his counsel, found ourselves involved in the unusual chain of events that led to this outcome."

It went on to give background on what led to the judge's move Friday.

"In short, a juror came to somehow believe that our courtroom demeanour was disrespectful of her. This was a [sic] unfortunate misinterpretation. No defence counsel would risk alienating a juror, and nothing could be further from the truth in this instance. … The very idea of counsel making light of a juror is illogical and runs directly counter to our purpose and function," the letter said.

"In a larger sense, perceptions and appearances play a central role in this trial, particularly, appearances that have been captured on videotape and perceptions about courtroom testimony," the letter adds. "If a single juror were prone to leap to unwarranted conclusions — and potentially impress these erroneous conclusions on their fellow jurors — the ends of justice and the right to a fair trial would be jeopardized.

"Accordingly, we will now be going forward with a trial by judge alone. We have every confidence that our trial judge will ensure a full and fair proceeding."...

 

[flipflop]

I followed this court case via lve updates from cbc.ca. I’m curious what others feel the verdict and sentencing will be?

I feel each of the 5 men will be guilty as charged.