Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[PepsiFree]

This is terribly morbid because these are real people with real consequences but:

I'm already finding this really fascinating and (awful word but oh well) exciting. Really really interesting developments already.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm assuming that the prosecution is probably saving their best witnesses for last.

Maybe. I really hope the crown didn't know the first witness had been trying to contact him after saying she had not made any attempts to do so.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by troutman

I have not heard about scheduling problems with a second witness. Not unusual to have adjournments in a large trial.

That's what the Crown said to the court. And it is highly unusual to have a full day adjournment by day 3 of a trial, large or not, and especially after only one witness has been called. Adjournments to reorganize witness schedules usually aren't needed within the first couple weeks.

There are many possibilities, but since the Crown was caught by surprise that witness 1 had sent suggestive emails and a bikini picture to Ghomeshi a year after the assaults, and was about to call witness 2 to corroborate that witnesses' testimony, the most likely issue at this time is the Crown needs to reorganize their case and might even drop the charge related to witness 1 and not call witness 2--- hence scheduling issues.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Maybe. I really hope the crown didn't know the first witness had been trying to contact him after saying she had not made any attempts to do so.

The Crown didn't know-- there is no defence disclosure duty. Calling MBates for insight....I could be wrong.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The Crown didn't know-- there is no defence disclosure duty. Calling MBates for insight....I could be wrong.

No, you're right. What a mistake, and right at the start.

[troutman]

Perhaps a Crown or defence lawyer can explain the distinction - is there one "trial" or is each complainant a separate trial from the others? The current "trial" involves 5 charges and 3 complainants.

There is another trial for a charge of sexual assault scheduled in June.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by troutman

Perhaps a Crown or defence lawyer can explain the distinction - is there one "trial" or is each complainant a separate trial from the others? The current "trial" involves 5 charges and 3 complainants.

There is another trial for a charge of sexual assault scheduled in June.

Same trial, just several counts in the indictment.

[Kjesse]

This article (while just a news article) does give some decent insight into the separate charges within the trial. The Crown strategy will be to have the charges considered as similar fact evidence, something greatly undermined after the first witness: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016...act-cases.html

[afc wimbledon]

It's conceivable, even likely at this stage that he will be found guilty of 3 or 4 charges and not guilty of 1 or 2 within the same trial, if it was trial by jury it's possible the bikini tweet evidence would have sunk the whole thing but judges tend to be less excitable and are able to draw a distinction between the evidence.

[PeteMoss]

The lawyer didn't even touch on the punches allegation. The crown may just want to move past this witness, but while being caught in some lies may not be great - I don't really see how it provides reasonable doubt about being punched when you don't even touch on it in cross.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's conceivable, even likely at this stage that he will be found guilty of 3 or 4 charges and not guilty of 1 or 2 within the same trial, if it was trial by jury it's possible the bikini tweet evidence would have sunk the whole thing but judges tend to be less excitable and are able to draw a distinction between the evidence.

Jury vs Judge alone is the toughest part to decide sometimes for defence.

The jury might not believe the complainants, or, after seeing several similar allegations might make up their mind that he's a guilty pervert.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's conceivable, even likely at this stage that he will be found guilty of 3 or 4 charges and not guilty of 1 or 2 within the same trial, if it was trial by jury it's possible the bikini tweet evidence would have sunk the whole thing but judges tend to be less excitable and are able to draw a distinction between the evidence.

I was thinking about the judge vs jury decision and benefits of going to the judge option. Here's what I came up:

• Defense lawyer can likely be 'rougher' on accusers without a jury thinking you're a jerk
• If there's photos of bruising, etc - judge would have probably seen things like that before and may be less swayed.
• More likely to get off if the defense is based on legal loopholes.
• Quicker?

Anything else?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I was thinking about the judge vs jury decision and benefits of going to the judge option. Here's what I came up:

• Defense lawyer can likely be 'rougher' on accusers without a jury thinking you're a jerk
• If there's photos of bruising, etc - judge would have probably seen things like that before and may be less swayed.
• More likely to get off if the defense is based on legal loopholes.
• Quicker?

Anything else?

Jury's are emotional, they are likely to judge a defendant on their likability as much as anything else, particularly in a sexual assault case.
They are also equally swayed by a sympathetic victim.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I was thinking about the judge vs jury decision and benefits of going to the judge option. Here's what I came up:

• Defense lawyer can likely be 'rougher' on accusers without a jury thinking you're a jerk
• If there's photos of bruising, etc - judge would have probably seen things like that before and may be less swayed.
• More likely to get off if the defense is based on legal loopholes.
• Quicker?

Anything else?

Jury can convict based off emotion. Harder to appeal a Jury verdict. Can only attack jury instructions, usually.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's just another way of saying it, but judges, through experience, are generally much better at objectively assessing witness credibility. So, where someone like Blatchford reads a lot into not being able to remember what model a car is, a judge is less likely to think that's important.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The lawyer didn't even touch on the punches allegation. The crown may just want to move past this witness, but while being caught in some lies may not be great - I don't really see how it provides reasonable doubt about being punched when you don't even touch on it in cross.

I mean, I've never been asked to punch a girl in bed but it can be interpreted that her trying to get back to him multiple times after that the punching was either consensual at the time or exaggerated after the fact.

I don't know if you want to praise Jian's lawyer or dress down the crown for being so painfully duped.

It's far from over with this many complainants and as long as the second witness hasn't totally dropped out, they could bury him under their testimony but what a dumb hole the crown has put themselves in off the bat.

[Zarley]

There's an interesting passage from the Toronto Life article about Marie Henein regarding jury vs. judge trials:

Henein, who has often appeared on panels with Edelson, is no stranger to those tactics. During one forum nearly two decades ago, she slyly noted that, although a complainant’s sexual and medical histories may be technically inadmissible, in a trial before a judge alone, not a jury—as Ghomeshi’s will be—there was no harm in arguing for their relevance anyway. Even if the argument proved unsuccessful, she pointed out, “Well, oh well, the judge has heard it.”

[pria(kin)16]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I was thinking about the judge vs jury decision and benefits of going to the judge option. Here's what I came up:

• Defense lawyer can likely be 'rougher' on accusers without a jury thinking you're a jerk
• If there's photos of bruising, etc - judge would have probably seen things like that before and may be less swayed.
• More likely to get off if the defense is based on legal loopholes.
• Quicker?

Anything else?

My criminal law professor always said, would you rather your fate determined by a professional who knows the law intimately or a group of 12 people that don't have a clue?

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by pria(kin)16

My criminal law professor always said, would you rather your fate determined by a professional who knows the law intimately or a group of 12 people that don't have a clue?

If I was guilty and the evidence generally supported a finding of guilt, then I'd take a jury any day!

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I mean, I've never been asked to punch a girl in bed but it can be interpreted that her trying to get back to him multiple times after that the punching was either consensual at the time or exaggerated after the fact.

Happens all the time in abusive relationships. Just because a person stays with someone or tries to get back together with someone or various other things it doesn't mean the event in question didn't happen or is being exaggerated after the fact.