Travis Vader Guilty Two Counts / Second degree

[gildo]

Travis Vader found guilty on two counts of second-degree murder

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/09/15...-albert-couple

[pylon]

Good, now we can stop hearing about this idiot. Hope he rots.

According to reports, all he said after the verdict was read was "NoooOOOOOO!"

[Kjesse]

Sounds like the right result, but wow did the RCMP ever screw up as to how they handled this, they don't come out looking good here.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Sounds like the right result, but wow did the RCMP ever screw up as to how they handled this, they don't come out looking good here.

According to this guy

https://twitter.com/petersankoff

the judge screwed up too.

[smithtofuhr86]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Sounds like the right result, but wow did the RCMP ever screw up as to how they handled this, they don't come out looking good here.

Very much so.

[Fuzz]

Hey, the Mounties always get their man. Eventually.

[undercoverbrother]

QR77 ran the verdict live.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mccree

According to this guy

https://twitter.com/petersankoff

the judge screwed up too.

Wow, that would suck if he wins an appeal because of that.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by Mccree

According to this guy

https://twitter.com/petersankoff

the judge screwed up too.

Wow.

[Acey]

To summarize the tweets.

Originally Posted by @PeterSankoff (Professor in Faculty of Law at U of A)

[Afer receiving confirmation that Vader was convicted under Section 230 of Criminal Code]
This is the most stunning error I've ever seen & considering the past few days with Alberta judges, is saying something. In my opinion, the Travis Vader murder verdict will not stand. On appeal, he will have to drop to manslaughter. I do not think the judge can issue a correction at this stage. Section 230 of the Criminal Code has been unconstitutional for 25 years. The section he relies upon to convict Vader of murder was invalidated in R v Martineau. Murder MUST have subjective foresight of death. That this happened on live television is .... staggering. The verdict can't be upheld as murder, because judge doesn't make the requisite findings to convict in the alternative under (valid) 229. I'd be surprised if Beresh doesn't bring this to judge's attention at the sentence hearing. Don Stuart has warned for years that failure to reform Criminal Code would lead to this. Section 230 should have been repealed yrs ago. It's always been a ticking time bomb. Judges have erroneously charged juries with it before.

[Implications for Vader] 2nd Degree murder gets you automatic life in prison, no parole eligibility for 10 years. Judge can increase to 20+, and I think he will. Manslaughter is punishable by up to life, but I've never seen that given. More common is 18-22 yrs - less than life, because parole eligibility is calculated based on the time you are imprisoned. Let's say it's going to be a lot lower than 20, though I can't say exactly how much. Thus, in real number terms, he'll be eligible for parole, I'm ball parking here, in 10 years, instead of 20. No small amount.

[Acey]

Second U of A Law prof saying the same thing:

BREAKING: U of A Law Prof Steven Penny say "egregious" error made in Travis Vader ruling relating to section 230 of the criminal code. #yeg

R v Martineau, the case Sankoff references as that which invalidated section 230 (sec 213 at the time) was a homicide in Valleyview (east of Grand Prairie) back in 1985.

[Slava]

Wow, that is terrible. I don't profess to be a lawyer at all, but you have to wonder whether the decision to have cameras in the court will be impacted in the future? Like its one thing to allow them if everything is fine, but to screw up and be immediately called out on that has to weigh on judges in the future?

[Northendzone]

Ugh, I hope this does not mean this POS gets off.

Brutal that it took 6 yrs to get to this point

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Ugh, I hope this does not mean this POS gets off.

Not a chance. Worst case, an appeal brings a reduction in sentence via a manslaughter charge... the deficiencies of Canadian homicide sentences not withstanding.

[killer_carlson]

worst case is that they send it back for a retrial and he is released on conditions pending the new trial

[Addick]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

worst case is that they send it back for a retrial...

I'd hope so but what are tests required for a mistrial? Using an unconstitutional section of the Criminal Code would be an issue with the verdict rather than a procedural issue.

[Kjesse]

nm

[Huntingwhale]

As a dummy who knows nothing about law, can someone please ELI5 how the judge screwed up?

[Kjesse]

Government: Congratulations, you're a judge. Here's the Criminal Code. You're now a judge, follow the rule book. And the other 100,000 plus pages of the laws we publish via our printer.
Judge: OK, thanks.
High Court: Of these rules, the following over the last 30 years we deem not enforceable. There's no list, read the case law.
Government Publisher: We don't publish the invalidity declarations of the High Court, unless the Government formally adopts them as amendments to the laws. These high court rulings do not make it into the actual laws even if the courts do not enforce them.

That's how it is.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

As a dummy who knows nothing about law, can someone please ELI5 how the judge screwed up?

Long story short... new trial quite possible. Judge said, "you are guilty of 2nd degree murder according to section 230 of the Criminal Code of Canada".

Instead of invalid sections of the Criminal Code being removed, they just sit there and can be referenced by judges despite being invalidated by the Supreme Court. It's incredibly bizarre.

Basically section 230 says that you can be found guilty of murder if people die while you are committing another crime such as robbery. This is logical. However, section 230 was deemed unconstitutional after a murder case in 1985. The reasoning is that a person should apparently not be subject to the punishment of a murder conviction if there's no proof that the person knew the victim would die as a result of the action. I mean... whatever.

So, essentially, the judge said, "you are guilty of 2nd degree murder according to a section of the Criminal Code that has been deemed unconstitutional."

Oh really, judge? Yes. So the ruling will be appealed.