[News] Milan Lucic involved in domestic incident; Taking indefinite leave of absence

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

It is weird that she said she was choked but then said she was not choked. If too bad no one else was there to witness. It's just a "he said", "she said". In my experience, witness statements are quite reliable in situations like this.

You'd be surprised (or not) how often an abusive partner's spouse will protect/justify the abusive partner's actions. She may have thought about it and decided after the fact to walk it back.

Sometimes they convince themselves that they were the ones that ####ed up (even if they didn't), sometimes they fear negative attention and judgment of others, sometimes they just do it to preserve the family because they think that keeping family structure intact is more important than holding the abusing party accountable.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Absolutely. GioforPM gave an outline of possibilities that could account for discrepancies.



That's not quite true though, is it? At minimum, if Lucic is of the defense that nothing significantly criminal occurred he will have to account for the physical and observable evidence (broken lamp, reddish marks, alleged intoxication, etc).

I don’t know what the defense’s case is. They can sit at the defense table and play cards with each other or use their phones to read CalgaryPuck. The state has to prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the highest standard in law.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I don’t know what the defense’s case is. They can sit at the defense table and play cards with each other or use their phones to read CalgaryPuck. The state has to prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the highest standard in law.

Yes, but in cases where it's likely she said/he said, if he doesn't say, and she's at all credible, it makes it much easier without a denial.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yes, but in cases where it's likely she said/he said, if he doesn't say, and she's at all credible, it makes it much easier without a denial.

When it comes to a preponderance of the evidence, yes. When it comes to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, no.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I don’t know what the defense’s case is. They can sit at the defense table and play cards with each other or use their phones to read CalgaryPuck. The state has to prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the highest standard in law.

You're not really of the mind that the defense is going to just sit there and twiddle their thumbs, are you? For as much responsibility as the prosecution has to eliminate doubt it's the defenses responsibility to sow that doubt.

This is a weird conversation to be having.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by butterfly

When it comes to a preponderance of the evidence, yes. When it comes to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, no.

Are you saying that without a denial, it doesn't make it easier?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Are you saying that without a denial, it doesn't make it easier?

MBates can answer this better, but many times there is no denial in Court at all. I.e. The Defendant often does not testify.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

MBates can answer this better, but many times there is no denial in Court at all. I.e. The Defendant often does not testify.

This is true, but the defence doesn't twiddle its thumbs. It at least has to poke holes in the Crown's case or there is no reasonable doubt. Defence lawyers can't just invent alternate theories and argue them. You have to present evidence that the theory might be correct.

Defendant's often don't testify. But that doesn't mean the defence leads zero evidence.

EDIT: Let's put this in less high stakes terms. The Crown shows video of the accused walking out of a store without paying for an item. The Crown has now met it's initial burden of proving the elements of a crime (theft under $5000/shoplifting). At that point the evidence is one sided and beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence can't just say "maybe the accused forgot". They need the accused in that case to take the stand and say so.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

When it comes to a preponderance of the evidence, yes. When it comes to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, no.

No, this is not the case at all. The differences are just a difference in standard of proof. 50% versus, let's say, 90%. But how does the defence create a 10% doubt in the face of a victim's unchallenged story?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, this is not the case at all. The differences are just a difference in standard of proof. 50% versus, let's say, 90%. But how does the defence create a 10% doubt in the face of a victim's unchallenged story?

That is an extreme difference you’ve just described. The 2023 Coyotes versus, let’s say, the 70s Canadiens?

The burden of proof is on the state to convince a jury that a victim is in fact such. Typically there are persuasive defense opportunities done on cross examination of state’s witnesses.

It would be silly of them to actually play cards, but they can. The state can accuse me of being Rumplestiltskin, have fun proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Are you saying that without a denial, it doesn't make it easier?

No. Luckily for us, we don’t have Salem witch trials anymore. A denial is in the form of a not guilty plea. Then all the pressure is on the state to prove their case. There’s no pressure on a defendant to prove or disprove a thing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

That is an extreme difference you’ve just described. The 2023 Coyotes versus, let’s say, the 70s Canadiens?

The burden of proof is on the state to convince a jury that a victim is in fact such. Typically there are persuasive defense opportunities done on cross examination of state’s witnesses.

It would be silly of them to actually play cards, but they can. The state can accuse me of being Rumplestiltskin, have fun proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dude you don’t understand the concept of reasonable doubt and evidence. Once the Crown has led evidence of all the grounds of an offence, unless the defence has somehow impeached that evidence through cross-examination, there is no reasonable doubt. In that case unless the defence leads their own evidence to create a doubt the Crown could ask for a directed verdict of guilty.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Dude you don’t understand the concept of reasonable doubt and evidence. Once the Crown has led evidence of all the grounds of an offence, unless the defence has somehow impeached that evidence through cross-examination, there is no reasonable doubt. In that case unless the defence leads their own evidence to create a doubt the Crown could ask for a directed verdict of guilty.

I’m not a dude, and I just addressed cross examination.

They can make all the claims they wish; the jury can reject any argument it hears if it is in any doubt.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I’m not a dude, and I just addressed cross examination.

They can make all the claims they wish; the jury can reject any argument it hears if it is in any doubt.

Dude is generic.

It wouldn’t get to a jury. And a jury is required to only consider arguments that have an evidentiary basis.

She says “he hit me without my consent” . Say that evidence is not changed through cross. If he says nothing and leads no other evidence to raise a doubt a guilty verdict for assault is required. A juror is required to have a basis for doubt. It can’t just be imagined.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Dude is generic.

It wouldn’t get to a jury. And a jury is required to only consider arguments that have an evidentiary basis.

She says “he hit me without my consent” . Say that evidence is not changed through cross. If he says nothing and leads no other evidence to raise a doubt a guilty verdict for assault is required. A juror is required to have a basis for doubt. It can’t just be imagined.

The jury can choose not to believe you. But yeah the defense has to establish doubt. Give the jury some reasons to have doubt.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Dude is generic.

It wouldn’t get to a jury. And a jury is required to only consider arguments that have an evidentiary basis.

She says “he hit me without my consent” . Say that evidence is not changed through cross. If he says nothing and leads no other evidence to raise a doubt a guilty verdict for assault is required. A juror is required to have a basis for doubt. It can’t just be imagined.

I would politely ask to be excluded from it.

Juries decide whether or not a defendant is guilty based on guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If “she” says that and the defendant is physically incapable of speaking, moving, or standing, would that not be grounds for reasonable doubt in your mind?

Yes, we are talking about Milan Lucic, who the example clearly doesn’t apply to, but this threshold is uniquely different for each juror.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I would politely ask to be excluded from it.

Juries decide whether or not a defendant is guilty based on guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If “she” says that and the defendant is physically incapable of speaking, moving, or standing, would that not be grounds for reasonable doubt in your mind?

Yes, we are talking about Milan Lucic, who the example clearly doesn’t apply to, but this threshold is uniquely different for each juror.

But you said that a denial from the accused makes no difference.

It does.

As I said, if a credible accuser says he did it, and that’s the evidence, a denial that could be true, is likely reasonable doubt. But no denial, the judge is left with the uncontested evidence of the accuser. That’s not reasonable doubt.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I would politely ask to be excluded from it.

Juries decide whether or not a defendant is guilty based on guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If “she” says that and the defendant is physically incapable of speaking, moving, or standing, would that not be grounds for reasonable doubt in your mind?

Yes, we are talking about Milan Lucic, who the example clearly doesn’t apply to, but this threshold is uniquely different for each juror.

And just how are you proving the defendant is incapable without evidence?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And just how are you proving the defendant is incapable without evidence?

Presumably from his doctors testimony?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is true, but the defence doesn't twiddle its thumbs. It at least has to poke holes in the Crown's case or there is no reasonable doubt. Defence lawyers can't just invent alternate theories and argue them. You have to present evidence that the theory might be correct.

Defendant's often don't testify. But that doesn't mean the defence leads zero evidence.

EDIT: Let's put this in less high stakes terms. The Crown shows video of the accused walking out of a store without paying for an item. The Crown has now met it's initial burden of proving the elements of a crime (theft under $5000/shoplifting). At that point the evidence is one sided and beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence can't just say "maybe the accused forgot". They need the accused in that case to take the stand and say so.

Well no $hit. I’m not suggesting they do.