Trial Thread 10 May 2012 - Judge's Instructions and maybe deliberations!

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #221
RaffertyLFP: Heeney says you are guilty if you committed the offense or "aided and abetted" the offense [via Twitter]

This is what confirms his guilt to me. I believe way beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of aiding and abetting TLM if not more. Therefore, guilty.
 
  • #222
I'm having issues with loading WS! UGH!
 
  • #223
RaffertyLFP: Heeney said just "being there" a spectator is not being an aider or abettor

Heeney tells the jury that for a guilty verdict don't need to take the same path on decision tree. Just need the same conclusion on a charge

Heeney going over aiding and abetting, and the law. Says a principal and an abettor are equally guilty of murder.
 
  • #224
Steven D'Souza ‏ @cbcsteve
Judge: Just being there doesn’t make a person guilty as an aider or abettor of any crime.

Steven D'Souza ‏ @cbcsteve
Judge now discussing law around "Parties to an Offence" as well as Aiding and Abetting.
 
  • #225
It's usually double time for time served before conviction.

They got rid of double time for time served/dead time in Canada in 2010 iirc?
 
  • #226
I'm having problems as well n/t
 
  • #227
It's usually double time for time served before conviction.


Catching up as usual here ..

That has recently been reduced to 1.5, but any charges prior to 2010 (i think) would still be eligible for up to double time. Allowing the credit is at the Judge's discretion.

I'm pretty sure that credit for time served AND statutory release do not apply to life sentences.

JMO
 
  • #228
RaffertyLFP: Heeney is now going thru the individual charges starting with the kidnap charges

Heeney says Rafferty is part of the crime if he knowingly helped McClintic kidnap a child.
 
  • #229
Avery Moore ‏ @AveryFreeFMNews
Judge tells jurors they have 2 be sure #Rafferty killed Tori Stafford or was at the scene w/ intent to help McClintic kill her, to be guilty
 
  • #230
I am optimistic! I think MTR is TOAST.
What a wonderful Mothersday present that for Tara would be.

BUT I am just curious. Is there still somebody out there with serious doubts on MTR's guilt?
I would like to keep this discussion alive and to think about it as the jury has to. .... till the verdict....

Thanks and I wish you all a great day. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me :-)

Everything points to him being guilty. Just his profile wasn't violent as it was for money. He was out to scam and make money with conning women. But evidence says TS was in his car and he had no reason for being in Mount Forest down a no maintance road. Nor did he show any remorse in covering up a murder.

However i don't believe anything TLM said. I would have to say i would find him guilty but always have a 1% wonder if he was ever innocent. Thank goodness i am not on a jury.
 
  • #231
If the accused helped the kidnapping, but was unaware, and eventually knew the person had been taken, he is guilty of kidnapping.

RaffertyLFP: Heeney said it is possible to be guilty of kidnapping through "willful blindness" of suspicious circumstances

RaffertyLFP: Heeney said the key point is whether Tori was confined, not to free to move about, or concealed in the car
 
  • #232
As far as I know, yes. The sentence for 1st degree murder is that the guilty party cannot apply for parole for 25 years, not that he or she is released in 25 years.

OT sort of but that was also the sentence given in 2010 to the woman in the altercation with TLM in January. She is appealing.
 
  • #233
Yes, but "Life" around here isn't really life. He'll be young enough still when he gets out to do something like this again.

What I was wondering if he'll get double time served for the last three years.

They got rid of the double time credit:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...time-for-custody-to-take-effect-85025102.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/03/25/prison-credit.html

However, I am not sure how it works since MR has been in custody since 2009. Grrrrrrrrr
 
  • #234
Sorry I still don't see the relevance to recap his POF girlfriends. I don't understand this part of the jury instructions by the Judge. Evidence is evidence and the jury should request clarification if and when they deliberate, if needed. They took notes, I believe they can ask for a part of a transcript to be reread to them, or video or whatever. Why waste all this time recapping witness testimony? It's no wonder it'll take a full day.

bbm

Linda Nguyen ‏ @LindaNguyenPN
Court is on another 15 min break. Judge has just finished recapping stream of ex-girlfriends who came to testify against #Rafferty in trial

I think exposure to US trials is influencing expectations for trials everywhere else. It is in the US that laws and justice are more unique. In Canada, England, Italy and many other countries where law is based on Roman Law, legal practices are similar.

Thankfully, the Judge is ensuring that everyone on the jury has a clear understanding of the law and on how to interpret the testimony. That was one of the biggest criticisms of the CA trial in Florida ... that the jury didn't seem to understand the law and how to interpret it. I'm thankful that there is no ambiguity regarding the responsibility of jurors in Canada. By no means it is a waste of time to educate the jurors about their responsibilities.
 
  • #235
Yes, but "Life" around here isn't really life. He'll be young enough still when he gets out to do something like this again.

What I was wondering if he'll get double time served for the last three years.

Life is life... period... he would be allowed to apply for parole after 25 years... dosen't mean he would be granted parole. Parole would be decided by a parole board. If denied he would have the right to apply again - but I "think" it's every five years..
 
  • #236
Going over testimony surrounding Tori leaving school on April 8th.

That includes video evidence of what's alleged to be Rafferty's car near Oliver Stephens Public School.
 
  • #237
Catching up as usual here ..

That has recently been reduced to 1.5, but any charges prior to 2010 (i think) would still be eligible for up to double time. Allowing the credit is at the Judge's discretion.

I'm pretty sure that credit for time served AND statutory release do not apply to life sentences.

JMO

I'm catching up too, I remember reading this:


re credits for time served ie dead time: http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliame...ce=library_prb



"The bill amends the Criminal Code (the Code) to limit the credit a judge may allow for any time spent in pre-sentencing custody in order to reduce the punishment to be imposed at sentencing, commonly called “credit for time served.”(1) There are three scenarios:


■In general, a judge may allow a maximum credit of one day for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody (“custody” in the bill) (clause 3 of the bill, new section 719(3) of the Code). On 8 October 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed to amend the bill to allow a maximum credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody. However, the Senate defeated the amendment on 20 October 2009.
■However, if, and only if, the circumstances justify it, a judge may allow a maximum credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody (clause 3 of the bill, new section 719(3.1) of the Code). On 8 October 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed to amend the bill to allow a maximum credit of two days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody. However, the Senate defeated the amendment on 20 October 2009.
■If the person’s criminal record or breach of conditions of release on bail was the reason for the pre-sentencing custody,(2) a judge may not allow more than one day’s credit for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody (clause 3 of the bill, new section 719(3.1) of the Code). On 8 October 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed to amend the bill to allow a maximum credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody. However, the Senate defeated the amendment on 20 October 2009."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...entencing.html

"New law ends 2-for-1 credit on jail sentencesJustice Minister Rob Nicholson announced on Tuesday that the Truth in Sentencing Act has now come into effect. (Chris Wattie/Reuters) Federal legislation limiting the amount of credit prisoners can get for time served in custody before and during their trial has become law, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced on Tuesday.

"The two-for-one credit is no longer an option. This will bring more truth in sentencing and give Canadians confidence that justice is being served," Nicholson told reporters in Ottawa .

The Truth in Sentencing Act was actually granted royal assent on Oct. 21, 2009, but came into effect on Monday."


Truth in sentencing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Truth in sentencing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Truth in sentencing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In Canada, the Truth in Sentencing act, or Bill C-25[1] came into effect on Monday, February 22, 2010.[2] This bill amends s.719 of the Criminal Code of Canada, limiting the discretion of a sentencing judges to give credit to individuals who have spent time incarcerated prior to conviction. Prior to this bill being implemented, as discussed by Justice Arbour in R v. Wust,[3] credit for pre-sentencing custody was not determined by a 'mathematical formula' but many judges have frequently granted a two-for-one credit. This is justified by the quantitative and qualitative differences between pre-and post-sentencing incarceration. Most individuals who are incarcerated will not serve the full length of their sentence, and because time spent incarcerated pre-sentence does not count towards remission time, where a lengthy pre-sentence incarceration is credited equally to post-sentencing incarceration the convicted individual will serve a longer sentence compared to an individual given the same sentence without a lengthy period of pre-sentencing incarceration. Arbour also points out that pre-sentence incarceration is typically served in detention, in harsher circumstances than the sentence will ultimately call for and without access to educational, rehabilitative and vocational programs.

Bill C-25 creates three changes in the Criminal Code;[4] now under s.719(3), generally the maximum credit a judge can give 1:1. Under s.719(3.1) and 719(3.2) a judge can only give a credit of 1.5:1 "if the circumstances justify it" and under s.719(3.1) the sentencing judge cannot give greater than 1:1 credit where the reason for pre-sentencing incarceration is either that person's criminal record or where that individual has breached their bail conditions.

The constitutionality of this bill was challenged under s.7, s.13 and s.15 of The Charter in the Ontario Court of Justice by Marvin Johnson.[5] The court found that the amendment will survive Charter scrutiny provided the phrase if the circumstances justify it is interpreted in a manner that doesn't limit the granting of a 1.5:1 credit to such a high standard "that mandates a level of exceptionality that goes well beyond the ordinary experience of “dead time” or the penal disparities that typically flow from such pre-sentence custody". In this case, Johnson who was sentenced to 18 months for the sale of $20 of cocaine to an undercover officer, was given a 1.5:1 credit for the 12 months he had spent in pre-sentence custody and was released two days after his sentencing hearing to a one year period of probation."
__________________
 
  • #238
I think exposure to US trials is influencing expectations for trials everywhere else. It is in the US that laws and justice are more unique. In Canada, England, Italy and many other countries where law is based on Roman Law, legal practices are similar.

Thankfully, the Judge is ensuring that everyone on the jury has a clear understanding of the law and on how to interpret the testimony. That was one of the biggest criticisms of the CA trial in Florida ... that the jury didn't seem to understand the law and how to interpret it. I'm thankful that there is no ambiguity regarding the responsibility of jurors in Canada. By no means it is a waste of time to educate the jurors about their responsibilities.

You are misunderstanding my point. I did NOT say it is waste of time educating jurors about their responsibilities. I said it IS a waste of time to recap witnesses.
 
  • #239
Life is life... period... he would be allowed to apply for parole after 25 years... dosen't mean he would be granted parole. Parole would be decided by a parole board. If denied he would have the right to apply again - but I "think" it's every five years..

But how often is anybody ever denied after serving their 25 years?
 
  • #240
Steven D'Souza ‏ @cbcsteve
Judge recounts law around Kidnapping. Now listing the evidence that relates to this charge
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
7,536
Total visitors
7,674

Forum statistics

Threads
633,267
Messages
18,638,825
Members
243,461
Latest member
Elbonita
Back
Top