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

[Alethea Dice]

Yes, abuse of process is grounds to bring forward a motion to quash (see last link/quote at bottom of this post).

Doing a copy/paste from your links as they won't show in quoting:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/20..._to_trial.html



Kruselaw is what I was relying on when saying the prosecution can't be challenged in the process of seeking direct indictment:

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

<bbm>

IMO, the above two bolded statements are contradictory, but I think lawyers would be more familiar with the processes of law than a reporter (or are they making a distinction between making submissions differing from "challenging"?)

Here's reference to a motion to quash a direct indictment having been granted, but I'm not 100% sure it is/isn't related to the fact that the accused were minors covered by the YCJA (but obviously in Robinson's case cited earlier his lawyer proceeded with such motion prior to trial):

from:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7359/index.do

<bbm>

While the old saying "the law is an a$$" may not always hold true, it sure is a bummer trying to figure it out at times

I think that judgement was because of the young offenders.

In Robinson's case, the lawyer appealed before the second attempt at a murder trial. He had originally been tried two years earlier and the murder charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence during the preliminary hearing. The Crown applied for a direct indictment to have him still stand trial on the murder charge. (Which as I said earlier, were the only samples I could find.) To me, that's different than a direct indictment for a first trial.

First-degree murder charges against John Douglas Robinson were dismissed Thursday morning after the presiding judge found "insufficient evidence" linking his actions to the death of 26-year-old Clifford Fair.
...
"From a police perspective, we were surprised by the court decision," he said. "With full respect to the court, we're looking towards the Crown attorney's office to review this decision.

http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2010/06/04/murder-charges-dismissed-in-dismemberment-case

On March 14, Morrow resumed her bid to challenge the 2010 direct indictment that ordered Robinson to stand trial on first-degree murder charges.

Those proceedings were subject to a publication ban.

The direct indictment was a response to Justice Marietta Roberts&#8217; ruling, following a 2010 preliminary hearing, that she found insignificant evidence linking Robinson's actions to the death of Fair.

The indictment came as a result of the attorney general overturning her decision to dismiss first-degree murder charges against Robinson.

The attorney general has the power to send a case directly to trial after an accused has been discharged by signing a direct indictment.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/04/23/start-of-robinson-trial-adjourned-24-hours

Obviously, the challenge failed since he was later convicted.

 

[Alethea Dice]

From Ducharme law, relating to courts having granted motion to quash:

from:
http://www.ducharmefox.com/Areas/Custom/ContentFiles/Documents/CriminalProcedureCasebook2013.pdf



"autrefois acquit" = plea that the defendant was previously acquitted

Isn't that section only about quashing an offense, in other words dropping a charge?

There are three types of offences: summary conviction, indictable, and dual or
hybrid offences.

Indictable offences are more serious. Section 743 of the Code provides a maximum
of five years imprisonment if the penalty for an indictable offence that is not otherwise
specified. There is seldom a statutory limitation period for an indictable offence.

http://www.ducharmefox.com/Areas/Custom/ContentFiles/Documents/CriminalProcedureCasebook2013.pdf

 

[Alethea Dice]

Yes and thank you SD that is the article I recall where DM was questioned and cooperated. I had to reread Juballee's post again. She did say it was after his arrest he failed to cooperate and talk. Again, if you have nothing to hide, hide nothing. He wasn't under the microscope while at the hangar, different scenerio at headquarters though. Obviously something he said to LE at the hangar IMO tipped them off. JMO though.

Didn't they say it was the tattoo that tipped them off? It could have been as simple as having an up close look at that, nothing to do with anything he said.

JMO

 

[Carli]

To me, the idea that a direct indictment is an indicator of how strong the crown believes their case to be just doesn't hold water. If the crown truly thought that their case was so iron clad, why would they be afraid to lay it out for the defence in a preliminary hearing? If they really thought that they had a slam dunk, why not tip their hand early and show the defence how powerless they are against the truth at the earliest convenience? That way, they could use that knowledge to convince the defendant that they really have no chance, and that they should just give in and plead guilty and save themselves and the taxpayers some money. Really, by skipping the preliminary hearing, they are removing any chance to save the taxpayers the expense of a trial.

I just don't find that to be a believable reason to skip the prelim, personally. It's illogical.

If you ask me, it appears the Crown has bent over backwards to keep discovery out of the hands of the accused. Weeks, if not months passed even minimal disclosure and then more weeks and months without full disclosure wich, it would appear, is still so. MOO. Nevertheless, whatever they're keeping hidden so close to the chest was sufficient to entice the AG to step way outside the bounds IMO with her premature opinion about certain conviction(s) in this case (or, more properly, in cases like this.) IMHO. Very, very curious. IMO. IMHO. MOO. etc.

 

[Alethea Dice]

If the 'no reasonable doubt' goalpost was as far out for everyone as a few people are willing to set it for Dellen Millard, all the prisons would be empty and the criminals would be running the show. Some days I'm surprised we don't see a theory that Tim Bosma drove himself out to that farm and then tripped and fell into the incinerator.

JMO.

I wasn't aware that you were privy to everything that will be presented at trial. Or are you just saying that what comes out at trial doesn't matter to you, that you are already past the no reasonable doubt post just from the early MSM reports? I myself am interested in which of those items in early MSM will be presented as evidence and which were determined to have nothing to do with it.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

Thanks, Silliybilly and Robynhood.

NO way any person who didn't do the crime or wasn't involved sits in jail month after month when arrested. NO WAY.
On the Inn. Proj., most involve eyewitness misidentifications and met the reasonable doubt criteria based on the eyewitness sworn testimony. That all innocent are not convicted, and any that are are released is not even applicable here.

Omar? I hope he wins all he can get just so Tabitha Speers and Layne Morris, in their lawsuit, get every dime Canada gives him. He got way better than he deserved, under law.

 

[Archangel7]

If you ask me, it appears the Crown has bent over backwards to keep discovery out of the hands of the accused. Weeks, if not months passed even minimal disclosure and then more weeks and months without full disclosure wich, it would appear, is still so. MOO. Nevertheless, whatever they're keeping hidden so close to the chest was sufficient to entice the AG to step way outside the bounds IMO with her premature opinion about certain conviction(s) in this case (or, more properly, in cases like this.) IMHO. Very, very curious. IMO. IMHO. MOO. etc.

Crown HAS to provide discovery in a timely manner and pretty much per Defense's request AND the defense can whine to the Judge and get it, IF defense thinks it is coming in too slow.

 

[Juballee]

BBM - Do you really believe defense is concerned about saving tax payers money? It's about the defense earning money. The longer the case drags on, the more money they make. And why should anyone plead guilty even if they know they are? There is that slight glimmer of hope they have the accused just might get off on some pathetic technicality. MOO.

I am sorry if you did not understand my post Swedie, let me try to explain it to you again. If the crown really thinks that their case is a sure thing to win, there is no reason not to share why they think that in a preliminary hearing.

If a defendant goes to his preliminary hearing and sees that he cannot possibly win when he sees the case that the crown has put together, he may plead out instead of going to a trial. He would do that to save himself his own personal money, and sometimes to get a more lenient sentence.

I am not saying that the defence cares about how much the crown spends. I am saying that the crown should try to save us some money if they really think that their case is so perfect, since the trial also costs the taxpayers financially. I am suggesting that the crown has other reasons to skip the preliminary hearing, since to say that it is being skipped because their case is too strong is the same as saying "My team is so sure to win this game, that we are not allowing you to even practice now."

If they really have so much evidence that it is overwhelmingly obvious that they will get a conviction, then it must surely be as obvious to the defence as it is to the crown how that evidence will be presented to make it fit, it is only logical. Anything else is illogical, unless the defence has some far-out scenario that they will be selling at trial that the defence could never have guessed at.

So, I just don't personally think that the reasons the preliminary hearing is being skipped is that the evidence is too strong, or that the way it will be framed needs to remain a mystery until trial. Again, if the evidence is so strong that a conviction is guaranteed, why wait for trial, why not get the defendant to plead after showing him your hand in the preliminary and save everyone time and money. If the evidence is being framed in a way that makes sense to an average person, then it would also make sense to DP, and there is no need to keep it a secret. That's just logic, and, of course, my opinion.

 

[Tamarind]

Well hopefully I can help make sense of it for you. My post originally started out to provide Althea Dice with information based on TLM's charges and how they changed over time, as AD said she did not recall the change of charges. While searching for the information I came upon the article stating TLM had originally been charged helping MR escape. I found it interesting that that is the same charge laid against CN. My point also being is charges can change. HTH.

You are absolutely right, it is a different case with different people but there are many comparatives; unlawful confinement, more than one perpetrator involved, trying to conceal or destroy the victim's remains, trying to help the perp escape, being an accessory to murder after the fact and of course murder. Maybe we will see changes to some of the charges against the accused in this case also. Time will tell. Again HTH and all MOO.



In a previous interview, Crown Attorney Anthony Leitch said the charge against Noudga relates to an allegation that she tried to help Millard "escape" on May 9, 2013.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...udga-bail-hearing-will-need-3rd-day-1.2723941

Christina Noudga, who is charged with being an accessory after the fact in the 2013 slaying of Tim Bosma, smiled as she left a Hamilton courtroom Friday, after being released on $100,000 bail.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...iles-as-she-s-released-on-100k-bail-1.2731080

Did CN try to help someone escape or is it still just an allegation? Did she conceal or destroy remains? Was she there in the truck? Sorry I don't see anything that supports this, do you have any links?

 

[ArianeEmory]

I wasn't aware that you were privy to everything that will be presented at trial. Or are you just saying that what comes out at trial doesn't matter to you, that you are already past the no reasonable doubt post just from the early MSM reports? I myself am interested in which of those items in early MSM will be presented as evidence and which were determined to have nothing to do with it.

JMO

No, what I'm aware of is the principle of Occam's Razor, and the likelihood of someone ending up with a dead father, a missing ex-girlfriend, a dead man on their property burned beyond recognition in an incinerator on said property, the dead man's truck in your trailer on your mother's property, and being charged in all three murders...while having nothing to do with any of it.

I also find the ongoing assertion that we must all assume DM is innocent, because it's the only acceptable position, to be disingenuous. We all see case after case on websleuths--those of us who venture outside of Tim Bosma's forums--where an accused murdered is arrested and charged with far less evidence (and ultimately convicted, and yes in Canada too) without every post against the accused being challenged on every detail. Every single post, every single detail. Nothing negative against DM (or CN; less so MS), is allowed to stand. It's this weird little aspect of the case, honestly, that keeps me coming back and reading the threads, and occasionally posting.

Meanwhile, semi-O/T but for contrast of what an innocent dupe case looks like, I know it's not Canada but perhaps some people interested in 'innocent until proven guilty at all costs' will care to give this guy a bump. Right now he's still in prison:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ark-Weiner-wrongfully-convicted-denied-remedy

I've brought him up before, and yes obviously people are free to be interested in whatever case interests them, and the guy in jail in this case isn't young/rich/handsome, and he's only got a two-page thread, but he's still in prison despite absolutely ridiculous charges.

 

[SnooperDuper]

If you ask me, it appears the Crown has bent over backwards to keep discovery out of the hands of the accused. Weeks, if not months passed even minimal disclosure and then more weeks and months without full disclosure wich, it would appear, is still so. MOO. Nevertheless, whatever they're keeping hidden so close to the chest was sufficient to entice the AG to step way outside the bounds IMO with her premature opinion about certain conviction(s) in this case (or, more properly, in cases like this.) IMHO. Very, very curious. IMO. IMHO. MOO. etc.

Crown HAS to provide discovery in a timely manner and pretty much per Defense's request AND the defense can whine to the Judge and get it, IF defense thinks it is coming in too slow.

I expect the investigation was ongoing until April 2014, when the last arrest (CN) was made?

I don't think they could (nor would it be reasonable for them to) provide full disclosure until their investigation was complete? Otherwise, keeping someone updated on all of the details in the investigation in which they are accused seems sort of bizarre, especially if the victims are kept in the dark at the same time.

I expect full disclosure was not actually due until April 2014?

 

[Tamarind]

I expect the investigation was ongoing until April 2014, when the last arrest (CN) was made?

I don't think they could (nor would it be reasonable for them to) provide full disclosure until their investigation was complete? Otherwise, keeping someone updated on all of the details in the investigation in which they are accused seems sort of bizarre, especially if the victims are kept in the dark at the same time.

I expect full disclosure was not actually due until April 2014?

The disclosure for CN may have taken until April 2014. I would think the disclosure involved in arresting DM would have been available shortly after his arrest, or why was he arrested if they didn't know everything they felt they needed to know?

Keeping up with providing the defense disclosure is not something they have a choice in IMO.

What do you mean keeping victims in the dark? Aren't they supposed to be deceased?

 

[Carli]

I expect the investigation was ongoing until April 2014, when the last arrest (CN) was made?

I don't think they could (nor would it be reasonable for them to) provide full disclosure until their investigation was complete? Otherwise, keeping someone updated on all of the details in the investigation in which they are accused seems sort of bizarre, especially if the victims are kept in the dark at the same time.

I expect full disclosure was not actually due until April 2014?

Respectfully, Snooper, the process is not a game. It ain't 'im vs the coppers. Of course police investigation continues in most cases (although, truth to tell, it does appear to grind to a halt once they've tossed a suspect into the hoosegow.) The Crown is free to accept or discard whatever investigatory evidence LE provides. If you are accused of a serious crime, you are entitled to full disclosure from the Crown of both the charge(s) (initially) and the evidence against you, (at several points along the way) in order that you may mount a full defense. This is a right guaranteed you by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The victims, sadly, are deceased. The charges have nothing to do with them. You are the accused. You are not exempted from the right to defend yourself, however heinous the charges against you may be. MO. In this case we've found several averted requests and delays associated with the Crown's disinterest or inability to provide disclosure. (I'll find the links, yet again, if necessary, but they've been posted here before.) It is that factor, in particular, that I find most perplexing about these lengthy arrests.

Arguably, we've been playing quite loosely with the Charter over the past decade or so, IMO. Nevertheless, it exists. Sooner or later we may again realize its essential value in insuring a free, open and just society. MOO. IMHO. etc.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The disclosure for CN may have taken until April 2014. I would think the disclosure involved in arresting DM would have been available shortly after his arrest, or why was he arrested if they didn't know everything they felt they needed to know?

So either DM should have run free until LE completed their investigation a year later, or LE should have stopped investigating DM after his arrest on May 10? How much sense does that make?

Keeping up with providing the defense disclosure is not something they have a choice in IMO.

What do you mean keeping victims in the dark? Aren't they supposed to be deceased?

I'm sorry, I thought of the families of the deceased as victims of crime, I guess you would like me to call them something else?

 

[Tamarind]

So either DM should have run free until LE completed their investigation a year later, or LE should have stopped investigating DM after his arrest on May 10? How much sense does that make?

Doesn't it make sense to have all your investigating done before you arrest someone? Otherwise why not just run up and arrest anyone who looks like the suspect and switch prisoners later. Surely they investigated the TB case fully before coming to the conclusion, that DM was the prime suspect? If not, then why on earth did they arrest him? On a hunch?

I'm sorry, I thought of the families of the deceased as victims of crime, I guess you would like me to call them something else?

I think they are grieving family members, if you want to call them victims thats ok but then so are MB and the rest of MS/DM's family, they are obviously victims of the fall out from this case to date. IMO

 

[Archangel7]

Full disclosure isn't absolute. Not everything the Crown "possesses" about the investigation is part of the "Discovery."

I have no doubt that if the Crown was really withholding or tardy with Discovery info. the court would be all over it.
Plus Defense can petition the court if they feel they are being jerked around.

In reality, evidence can be found and admitted into court up to a returned verdict.

 

[Sillybilly]

Isn't that section only about quashing an offense, in other words dropping a charge?


http://www.ducharmefox.com/Areas/Custom/ContentFiles/Documents/CriminalProcedureCasebook2013.pdf

Same thing ... dropping a charge is precisely what the defence would want to accomplish with a Motion to Dismiss (I think the terminology "motion to quash" is outdated, although it was me who used it). It is a very common motion by the defence in any proceedings prior to trial and has the goal of getting the charges dropped, thrown out, finis >> DT happy dance !!

WRT your earlier post about indictment ...

An indictment is an indictment ... whether through the &#8220;normal&#8221; lengthier process or direct to trial, if you are ordered to stand trial on an indictable (as compared to summary) offence, it is an indictment, you have been indicted. The Crown is permitted to pursue direct indictment whether it is a first trial or even if an accused has been previously discharged (as in the Robinson case)

Whichever fashion the indictment is arrived at (whether through &#8220;normal&#8221; process or direct) should have no bearing on whether the defence can bring forward a motion to dismiss. In either process, the defence is simply trying to get an indictment (going to trial on an indictable charge) thrown out, and the motion itself should be no different, but the considerations affecting the granting of it in a direct indictment case may be more stringent due to the reasons supporting its authorization in the first place. I read today (somewhere, sigh) that the court would be more inclined to try resolving the issues brought forward rather than granting the motion to dismiss.

Clear as mud I think

 

[Sillybilly]

Respectfully, Snooper, the process is not a game. It ain't 'im vs the coppers. Of course police investigation continues in most cases (although, truth to tell, it does appear to grind to a halt once they've tossed a suspect into the hoosegow.)

<rsbm>

No, not a game, but there are professional strategies that can be used to either side's benefit within the confines of the law.

WRT a grind to a halt after an arrest, DLS in the Gleave case and Vader in the McCann case are examples of how continued investigation by LE and information relayed to the Crown resulted in them NOT being kept in the hoosegow. If all they were bent on was an arrest and to heck with dude, those two would still be in prison.

 

[Sillybilly]

From the Ontario AG's office wrt Rules of Disclosure (Section 3 covers "Typical Disclosure Items"):

http://www.criminallawyers.ca/members/sharedocs/docs/March2006/PM_2005_No_35.pdf

These guys don't operate in a vacuum .. they have rules they have to adhere to.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Same thing ... dropping a charge is precisely what the defence would want to accomplish with a Motion to Dismiss (I think the terminology "motion to quash" it outdated, although it was me who used it). It is a very common motion by the defence in any proceedings prior to trial and has the goal of getting the charges dropped, thrown out, finis >> DT happy dance !!

WRT your earlier post about indictment ...

An indictment is an indictment ... whether through the &#8220;normal&#8221; lengthier process or direct to trial, if you are ordered to stand trial on an indictable (as compared to summary) offence, it is an indictment, you have been indicted. The Crown is permitted to pursue direct indictment whether it is a first trial or even if an accused has been previously discharged (as in the Robinson case)

Whichever fashion the indictment is arrived at (whether through &#8220;normal&#8221; process or direct) should have no bearing on whether the defence can bring forward a motion to dismiss. In either process, the defence is simply trying to get an indictment (going to trial on an indictable charge) thrown out, and the motion itself should be no different, but the considerations affecting the granting of it in a direct indictment case may be more stringent due to the reasons supporting its authorization in the first place. I read today (somewhere, sigh) that the court would be more inclined to try resolving the issues brought forward rather than granting the motion to dismiss.

Clear as mud I think

I understand all that (I think ). But weren't we trying to determine if the defense has the opportunity to challenge or appeal the "direct" indictment (proceeding to trial without a preliminary trial? Whether the defense had any say in, or could attempt to stop, the direct indictment thereby allowing the preliminary hearing to happen?