Douglas Garland Trial - Guilty- 1st degree- 3 counts / 75 years no parole.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is there any risk of reasonable doubt being found if the jury doesn't believe the prosecution claim that they left the house alive?

Was thinking that myself, not sure why they keyed so much on the torture card. especially for all 3 victims.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Once he took him from the house, with the other people he intended to kill, it became intent to kill. That's first degree.

I agree I'm just not so sure all jurors will agree with that. Don't know what it takes for a conviction to be lowered to second degree or if all jurors need to agree but I can see some struggle with that part. I think there is no chance there doesn't come back a first degree murder charge for the grandparents but I believe there is a chance the jurors struggle with the first degree charge with Nathan.

Didn't that guy who killed that little girl and her mom only get charged with second degree murder for the girl and first for the mom?

[Northendzone]

for you guys that are lawyers can you provide with any inishgt on how things work once the jury starts deliberating?

is it like the movie 12 angry men, where they head into the room and immediately take a vote and then jurors try and sway other jurors?

or is there some type of structure they need to follow?

[cammy13]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...reit-1.3982966

This article is heartbreaking. It really makes you appreciate the hard work the police do everyday.

[Robbob]

So am I reading it right that back in the day he was arrested for having a meth lab and distributing meth but when on bail skipped town. He then lived under a stolen identity for 7 years at which point he is caught and after all that only spends 3 years in prison

[habernac]

and out in 6 months

[GGG]

Do you think he killed the guy of the identity he stole. It talks about the kid dying in a car accident and then Garland having ptsd from a car accident.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I agree I'm just not so sure all jurors will agree with that. Don't know what it takes for a conviction to be lowered to second degree or if all jurors need to agree but I can see some struggle with that part. I think there is no chance there doesn't come back a first degree murder charge for the grandparents but I believe there is a chance the jurors struggle with the first degree charge with Nathan.

Didn't that guy who killed that little girl and her mom only get charged with second degree murder for the girl and first for the mom?

All they need is a first and two seconds maybe even only 1 second and he dies in prison so I'm not to worried as long as they convict on all counts.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

for you guys that are lawyers can you provide with any inishgt on how things work once the jury starts deliberating?

is it like the movie 12 angry men, where they head into the room and immediately take a vote and then jurors try and sway other jurors?

or is there some type of structure they need to follow?

Not a lawyer but was the foreman on a jury in Toronto a few years ago.

We weren't given any specific structure to follow, just directions by the judge and then set free to deliberate.

We tried to go through the evidence as best as possible and took votes periodically. Some jurors made their opinions pretty clear before we even got to deliberation though.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by greyshep

From that article:

...a psychologist determined that he had "little violence potential to others."

Should have seen a psychiatrist.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by GGG

All they need is a first and two seconds maybe even only 1 second and he dies in prison so I'm not to worried as long as they convict on all counts.

Agreed. I'd rather a conviction on a "lesser" charge if that means an appeal would be more likely to be unsuccessful. As long as the sentence is lengthy enough for him to never see the light of day.

From what I understand, the degree of the murder charge on Nathan hinges on the kidnapping angle, not premeditation. So the question becomes whether or not he was alive when he was taken from the home. If he was, and they can prove it, then it is first degree. If not, or they can't prove it, then it would end up being second. Am I interpreting that correctly?

[Hockeyguy15]

If I was on the jury I think my only issue would be where they actually died. I have a hard time believing that they would be alive for that trip to the farm in the back of a pickup.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

If I was on the jury I think my only issue would be where they actually died. I have a hard time believing that they would be alive for that trip to the farm in the back of a pickup.

If I was on the jury I would be pushing for chinese food over sandwiches before we deliver a guilty verdict.

[aaronck]

Meth cooking identity stealing Med school cheat.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...tley-1.3968039

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by habernac

and out in 6 months

You are right. When read that last night I totally missed the part that he only ended up serving 6 months. You wold think they would have been a little harder on him considering he was a fugitive for 7 years. Must have been the same parole board that reviewed Sideshow Bob.

[dubc80]

Originally Posted by cammy13

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...reit-1.3982966

This article is heartbreaking. It really makes you appreciate the hard work the police do everyday.

I thought this tidbit from the article was rather interesting.

"Police were contacted on July 3, 2014, by Cenovus Energy, the company that employed Nathan's father, Rod O'Brien, which offered to finance a ransom if a request for money in return for the family members was made".

[dubc80]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

for you guys that are lawyers can you provide with any inishgt on how things work once the jury starts deliberating?

is it like the movie 12 angry men, where they head into the room and immediately take a vote and then jurors try and sway other jurors?

or is there some type of structure they need to follow?

I'm curious about this as well. How does the whole process work?

When you're sequestered, I'm guessing you have to cut-off contact to the outside world and basically go to/from a hotel? Are you escorted and monitored 24/7? I'm guessing you get an allowance of some sort for food and taxi, etc?

It might be different in the States, but I remember in that show "Making a Murderer" they mentioned that the jury had some very vocal and assertive jurors who swayed the opinion of a few of the others and actually made them change their votes.

[Bar-Down]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

If I was on the jury I think my only issue would be where they actually died. I have a hard time believing that they would be alive for that trip to the farm in the back of a pickup.

I think there is sufficient evidence to prove that they were alive.

-Bloody hand print on the wall
-Garland had Chloroform (used as an anesthetic), and a blood stopper solution
-Research on his computer about how "hard" to hit someone to cause a concussion/knock them out.
- Blood expert said it was definitely possible they were still alive

He could have hit them on the head multiple times to weaken them, then use the blood stopper to limit bleeding so they stayed alive all while he uses the Chloroform to make sure they stay asleep for the drive back to the farm.

I hope he is charged with 1st degree on all accounts.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by dubc80

I'm curious about this as well. How does the whole process work?

When you're sequestered, I'm guessing you have to cut-off contact to the outside world and basically go to/from a hotel? Are you escorted and monitored 24/7? I'm guessing you get an allowance of some sort for food and taxi, etc?

It might be different in the States, but I remember in that show "Making a Murderer" they mentioned that the jury had some very vocal and assertive jurors who swayed the opinion of a few of the others and actually made them change their votes.

Yes they keep the jury together all the time and bus you to the hotel and back to the courthouse. They order in food / take you out to breakfast whatever the case may be.

Someone needs to change their vote in order to find guilty / not guilty I would guess almost every time, otherwise there would be a whole lot of mistrials. I don't know that I would classify it as bullying or anything (although I'm sure that happens) more convincing by going over evidence etc... Once we read our verdict the defence lawyer asked for a process where we each had to stand and say we agreed with the verdict in court. If someone truly were coerced that would be their way to voice it I suppose.

[Huntingwhale]

Garland is the biggest POS loser I've ever heard about. From top to bottom, just pure scum and a representation of what is wrong with humanity. Forget rehab and rehabilitation. Lock him up in solitary and throw away the key.