Wayne Millard: Dellen Millard Charged With Murder In The First Degree #1

[Tamarind]

You beat me to it swedie. How does the Crown applying for and getting a direct indictment provide ammunition to the defense when the process basically eliminates the dt's ability to see how the Crown will present the evidence? :waitasec:

What makes you think a preliminary exposes how they will present evidence? In many cases they use the preliminaries as a way to throw dirt at the accused. They can and do bring in traffic stops and anything that they feel will make someone look bad. Why would a defense attorney want to waste time on that, especially if he knows the truth? JMO

ETA: Direct indictment basically removes the defence team's ability to know how the Crown will present the evidence, which IMO is not a benefit to the defence. Nor is it a devious ploy by the Crown ... simply an indicator of how strong they believe their case to be.

It is a benefit to the defense if the defense has the answers IMO. Defense would have to agree to waive a pretrial IMO, I think everyone has to be on board with any arrangements JMO

 

[Tamarind]

<rsbm>

Thanks for your sentiments, but I was merely addressing my own experience with police interviews and truth which I believe is applicable to each and every case where a police interview has taken place. It's was an opinion based on my own experience related to the current discussion ... not something that I bring into "every case thereafter".

IMO, the chances of being wrongly accused now are much less than they were in the past (i.e. Morin, Truscott, Marshall cases so frequently referred to) with interrogations now being recorded and more safeguards in place to prevent the injustices of the past.

:moo:

Some police interactions are recorded. not all. Most interactions on the street or in a home are not recorded IMO.

Sometimes only the last interview is recorded that's after several intense and intimidating ones have already occurred. IMO

 

[Tamarind]

Sorry your explanation is as clear as mud to me. So are you suggesting DM has chosen to stay quiet because he has enemies on the outside who may harm or kill him if he was released? Back to the framing aspect? LE do not keep innocent people in jail for their own protection, it just doesn't happen that way. His mother has/had the funds to hide him away. Who would chose to be confined to a jail cell for years, subjected to eat the nasty foods served within, being cut off from all human contact except guards and the torture some suggest goes on while imprisoned. Heck if there's anyone who probably fears for her life, take a look at Casey A. She's doing a fine job of hiding from the public. MOO.

So what is DM going to do IF found not guilty through his trial? Do you predict he will; pick up where he left off or do you suspect he will go into hiding, fearing for his life from those who have not been arrested due to the lack of evidence? But yet again, the AG's decision to bypass the PH in this case seems to suggest the Crown has sufficient evidence for a conviction so I don't understand your statement of the defense having more ammo than the Crown. I often wonder if the accused took pictures or videos of their sick deeds. Like Paul B, Karla H Russell W and Luka M (interesting to note, these cases are Canadian). Or worse, that of the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. Could this be the evidence the Crown has to prove guilt against the the charged on the three murders? If this is the case, my heart goes out to those who will make up the jury for this trial. Maybe the accused will plead guilty eventually sparing those the trauma of having to sit through such a trial. Time will tell. MOO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_Magnotta

I am not here to make predictions, I don't think anyone here can do that with any accuracy. Although if I can find my tarot cards I can give it a shot, but I charge

 

[Tamarind]

wow ...who said the defense does NOT HAVE a SAY in a Preliminary hearing...we are a democracy so of course the defence has a say...I never said anything different...so PLEASE do not put words in my mouth...I am chocking here..JMHO...robynhood....We have been waiting a long time to hear DM so called story....speak up I cannot hear ya...rolmao now....IMO of course...

The trial is in 2015 isn't it? So it's a bit of a wait. Is there someone there who can do the Heimlich Maneuver?

 

[Alethea Dice]

While DM has some compelling reasons to keep his mouth shut, you would think that CN and maybe MS or the 3M's have compelling reasons to spill.

What are the odds that EVERYBODY stays quiet throughout the trial? Slim to none...

I don't think DM's cult of personality is strong enough that CN would spend 25 years in jail for him, or MS, 50, if they could help it.

Why would MS have any more compelling reason to talk than DM?? He's in exactly the same position and, if found guilty, facing a life sentence regardless.

 

[Alethea Dice]

What makes you think a preliminary exposes how they will present evidence? In many cases they use the preliminaries as a way to throw dirt at the accused. They can and do bring in traffic stops and anything that they feel will make someone look bad. Why would a defense attorney want to waste time on that, especially if he knows the truth? JMO



It is a benefit to the defense if the defense has the answers IMO. Defense would have to agree to waive a pretrial IMO, I think everyone has to be on board with any arrangements JMO

Unfortunately, no. The defense has no say in the request for a direct indictment.

Calling the move &#8220;extraordinary,&#8221; Pillay said the legal procedure is shrouded in secrecy and &#8220;significantly impedes&#8221; Millard&#8217;s ability to mount &#8220;a full and complete defence to a serious criminal charge.&#8221;
&#8220;The accused is not provided with the submissions made by the Crown to the attorney general for the direct indictment. The accused is also not provided with the reasons cited by the attorney general for issuing the direct indictment. There is also no means by which the accused is able to appeal the decision.&#8221;

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/16/tim_bosma_murder_case_heading_straight_to_trial.html

A direct indictment is only supposed to be used rarely and for exceptional circumstances. Sadly, Ontario seems to be following Alberta and Manitoba and using them far more frequently. And it's not always for the right reason apparently, as in the case of Travis Vader.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/travis-vader-charges-stayed-in-mccann-murder-case-1.2578680

Over the last few years it seems like, if it's in the news it'll be a direct indictment.

 

[Tamarind]

A direct indictment is only supposed to be used rarely and for exceptional circumstances. Sadly, Ontario seems to be following Alberta and Manitoba and using them far more frequently. And it's not always for the right reason apparently, as in the case of Travis Vader.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/travis-vader-charges-stayed-in-mccann-murder-case-1.2578680

Over the last few years it seems like, if it's in the news it'll be a direct indictment.

Thanks Alethea, So basically if they think they have already swayed public (jury) opinion, they opt to bypass the parts where their expert? witnesses and anyone involved in the arresting process, can be cross questioned ahead of time. I still think it doesn't really affect the accused if they have the truth at hand. Thank you for the links

I guess if the defense felt the need to offer up some information it may give reason to have a pretrial... Will have to see I guess. thx

 

[SnooperDuper]

Why would MS have any more compelling reason to talk than DM?? He's in exactly the same position and, if found guilty, facing a life sentence regardless.

Well, hey, why doesn't everybody talk?

 

[Sillybilly]

Thanks Alethea, So basically if they think they have already swayed public (jury) opinion, they opt to bypass the parts where their expert? witnesses and anyone involved in the arresting process, can be cross questioned ahead of time. I still think it doesn't really affect the accused if they have the truth at hand. Thank you for the links

I guess if the defense felt the need to offer up some information it may give reason to have a pretrial... Will have to see I guess. thx

While the Crown has the power to request direct indictment, they have to ensure the application is based on certain criterion (i.e. witnesses being threatened, to ensure the rights of the accused under Sec 11(b) of the Charter, to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice, etc). If the defence sees a problem in certain areas, they can bring forward a motion to quash.

I doubt swaying public opinion is part of their decision making process, and in the highly unlikely event the Crown was inept enough to try it and the defence could prove it, then they would probably be successful in their motion to quash.

Rather than trying to wade through an understanding of Section 577 of the Criminal Code, the following (although not Ontario) is a primer on understanding what is considered in the direct indictment process:

http://www.justice.gov.nl.ca/just/prosect/guidebook/019.pdf

 

[Tamarind]

While the Crown has the power to request direct indictment, they have to ensure the application is based on certain criterion (i.e. witnesses being threatened, to ensure the rights of the accused under Sec 11(b) of the Charter, to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice, etc). If the defence sees a problem in certain areas, they can bring forward a motion to quash.

I figured they could have a say if they wanted to.

I doubt swaying public opinion is part of their decision making process, and in the highly unlikely event the Crown was inept enough to try it and the defence could prove it, then they would probably be successful in their motion to quash.

The defense would never be able to prove that, even if it were the case IMO

Rather than trying to wade through an understanding of Section 577 of the Criminal Code, the following (although not Ontario) is a primer on understanding what is considered in the direct indictment process:

http://www.justice.gov.nl.ca/just/prosect/guidebook/019.pdf

Thank you, I shall keep it handy.

 

[swedie]

Why would MS have any more compelling reason to talk than DM?? He's in exactly the same position and, if found guilty, facing a life sentence regardless.

If he wasn't as involved as DM and his charges are reduced. Remember Victoria S's case, how TLM's charges were changed plus an additional charge was tacked onto MR's charges, sexual assault causing bodily harm.

Being as DM was arrested first, he may have tried to point a finger at MS for TB's murder, resulting in MS's arrest. MS may get a plea deal (just as Karla H did) to testify against DM, CN or any of the three M's.

Have we heard if MS is still in GP? That to me seems very odd, MS's living arrangements from day one while his buddy sits/sat in SC IMHO. MAYBE MS cooperated with LE during interrogation, LE would have his statement on video as evidence, therefore he may have the right to chose to live in GP while maintaining his plea of innocent. Maybe...

MOO.

Just a side note for anyone interested, Karla is living in Quebec once again. She is another one who has been able to hide and continues to carry on with her life. MOO.

Karla Homolka was sentenced to 12 years in prison for manslaughter in a high-profile murder case in the 1990s

The jury heard that Karla Homolka is living in Quebec with her spouse.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/karla-...-magnotta-trial-hears-1.2058469#ixzz3LkMnQbnj

 

[ArianeEmory]

Sorry your explanation is as clear as mud to me. So are you suggesting DM has chosen to stay quiet because he has enemies on the outside who may harm or kill him if he was released? Back to the framing aspect? LE do not keep innocent people in jail for their own protection, it just doesn't happen that way. His mother has/had the funds to hide him away. Who would chose to be confined to a jail cell for years, subjected to eat the nasty foods served within, being cut off from all human contact except guards and the torture some suggest goes on while imprisoned. Heck if there's anyone who probably fears for her life, take a look at Casey A. She's doing a fine job of hiding from the public. MOO.

Come on Swedie, you know "jail is the safest place for him because of scary conspiracy people who have contrived the most complicated frame up ever" has been the standard response to "if he has information exonerating himself, why doesn't he speak up?" since ... Oh, I'm gonna say since about May 2013.

I read these threads every day, and every day I think "this trial cannot come soon enough". I can't wait for the retroactive innocent-dupe explanations, and what will be an undoubted expansion of just how far the cover-up goes.

Keep it coming, guys.

 

[Carli]

Come on Swedie, you know "jail is the safest place for him because of scary conspiracy people who have contrived the most complicated frame up ever" has been the standard response to "if he has information exonerating himself, why doesn't he speak up?" since ... Oh, I'm gonna say since about May 2013.

I read these threads every day, and every day I think "this trial cannot come soon enough". I can't wait for the retroactive innocent-dupe explanations, and what will be an undoubted expansion of just how far the cover-up goes.

Keep it coming, guys.

Wow!! :hilarious:

 

[swedie]

Thanks Alethea, So basically if they think they have already swayed public (jury) opinion, they opt to bypass the parts where their expert? witnesses and anyone involved in the arresting process, can be cross questioned ahead of time. I still think it doesn't really affect the accused if they have the truth at hand. Thank you for the links

I guess if the defense felt the need to offer up some information it may give reason to have a pretrial... Will have to see I guess. thx

You yourself are the public also Tamarind. Should you get called and serve as a jury member in this case, I guess you've already been swayed. Interesting comparative. MOO.

 

[swedie]

Come on Swedie, you know "jail is the safest place for him because of scary conspiracy people who have contrived the most complicated frame up ever" has been the standard response to "if he has information exonerating himself, why doesn't he speak up?" since ... Oh, I'm gonna say since about May 2013.

I read these threads every day, and every day I think "this trial cannot come soon enough". I can't wait for the retroactive innocent-dupe explanations, and what will be an undoubted expansion of just how far the cover-up goes.

Keep it coming, guys.

Great to see you back AE.

I think you will more likely see this. :escape:

 

[Sillybilly]

I figured they could have a say if they wanted to.

Not in the direct indictment ... only AFTER a direct indictment is approved, and IF there is legal justification to do so, they can bring forward a "Motion to Quash". According to this example I posted previously, we may not even see that until closer to trial:

March 13 2012 with trial a little more than a month away:
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview....st-direct-indictment-in-robinson-murder-trial

WOODSTOCK - A bid to quash a 2010 direct indictment that ordered John Douglas Robinson to stand trial on first-degree murder charges in relation to the death of Clifford Fair began Tuesday ...

Pretrial motions in the Robinson case are set to begin April 23, 2012, and are expected to last a week.

Jury selection will begin April 30 with the trial to start immediately after.

 

[Alethea Dice]

While the Crown has the power to request direct indictment, they have to ensure the application is based on certain criterion (i.e. witnesses being threatened, to ensure the rights of the accused under Sec 11(b) of the Charter, to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice, etc). If the defence sees a problem in certain areas, they can bring forward a motion to quash.

Not according to anything I can find. I did read one earlier that stated a direct indictment can only be appealed if there is proof of misconduct by the prosecution, or something similar to that. If I manage to find it again, I'll post it. Considering the defense isn't even given the reasons for the direct indictment, it would be a little difficult to argue it based on listed criterion. As well, direct indictments are also used sometimes when the first Judge finds insufficient evidence to go to trial, just to make sure it goes to trial. In those cases, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

They are approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general rather than by a judge in a courtroom. While both the Crown and defence can make submissions to the attorney general, there is no opportunity to appeal the decision.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/06/20/tim_bosma_murder_crown_applies_to_take_case_right_to_trial.html

The prosecution cannot be challenged when asking for a direct indictment and a person loses their right to fully discover their case at the preliminary hearing.

http://www.kruselaw.ca/blogpost?post=20140804

Rafferty’s lawyer Dirk Derstine was not happy when he learned in 2010 that the ministry was taking the unusual step of sending his client straight to trial on charges he raped and murdered eight-year-old Tori Stafford. There were no reasons given and no appeal possible.
....
The defence lawyer complains that it only seems to be used in high profile cases and we are never told the reason why — it’s a decision made at the ministry level and no explanation is ever offered.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/20/a-direct-indictment-would-be-welcome-news-for-tim-bosmas-family

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/too-many-direct-indictments-lawyer-1.652295

 

[Alethea Dice]

If he wasn't as involved as DM and his charges are reduced. Remember Victoria S's case, how TLM's charges were changed plus an additional charge was tacked onto MR's charges, sexual assault causing bodily harm.

Being as DM was arrested first, he may have tried to point a finger at MS for TB's murder, resulting in MS's arrest. MS may get a plea deal (just as Karla H did) to testify against DM, CN or any of the three M's.

Have we heard if MS is still in GP? That to me seems very odd, MS's living arrangements from day one while his buddy sits/sat in SC IMHO. MAYBE MS cooperated with LE during interrogation, LE would have his statement on video as evidence, therefore he may have the right to chose to live in GP while maintaining his plea of innocent. Maybe...

MOO.

Sorry, I don't remember her charges changing, only that she was still charged and convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life. And, due to the publication ban at the time, I have no idea when the sexual assault charge was laid.

If the claim is that DM has always maintained his silence, how did he point a finger at MS? I highly doubt MS will get a Karla deal when he was allegedly involved in a murder during a forcible confinement. And he definitely won't get a deal for testifying against CN or any of the three M's, whose charges are all lesser than his.

All I've ever heard about MS's time in jail is that he is in and out of solitary at various given times.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Great to see you back AE.

I think you will more likely see this. :escape:

You're probably right. Once a trial is over, it's over. I don't think too many people would continue to obsess over it.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Not in the direct indictment ... only AFTER a direct indictment is approved, and IF there is legal justification to do so, they can bring forward a "Motion to Quash". According to this example I posted previously, we may not even see that until closer to trial:

March 13 2012 with trial a little more than a month away:
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview....st-direct-indictment-in-robinson-murder-trial

Those are the only types of samples I could find - ones where the charges were dismissed at the first trial due to insufficient evidence. Oh, and one where new charges were added that were going to be included in the same trial, but weren't yet on the books when the direct indictment was allowed.