Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[blankall]

Originally Posted by manwiches

My best friend is a criminal defense attorney. He only focuses on DUIs now, but his stance to get through his job was that everybody deserves a defense, regardless of their situation. He did move over to just defend DUIs, as he said dealing with some of the cases he had to defend, wasn't the most appealing thing to be doing long term. He doesn't like talking about his job at all to be honest, and is very good at compartmentalizing things.

Same with another couple good friends who are Crown Prosecutors here in Regina. They don't talk much about work (mainly because they can't), but also have told me they compartmentalize their job from their work.

A lot of crim defence lawyers I know are really focused on justice and human rights. Protecting people against the system is a huge issue. Whether its police officers not doing their job correctly or general biases against various vulnerable groups. Not all of their work is dragging complainants through the mud.

It's also often criminal defence lawyers who are the forefront of pushing for more just and equitable criminal laws, including ending the states right to interfere in same sex marriage, prohibition on marijuana, prohibitions on abortion etc...A lot of these laws often end after constitutional challenges have been made by criminal defence lawyers.

But yes, I could never be a criminal defence lawyer, as most of your clients are guilty.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The defense really going after her for cheating on her boyfriends. Classic way of trying to shift the guilt to the accuser. I get it - but it's disgusting.
Cheating one's partner may be wrong, but it's not illegal.

I understand the angle, as rare as false accusations are, if one was to make a false accusation it could be in a case of cheating and you wanted to remove responsibility from yourself if your partner finds out. I personally know of a situation like that, however in that case, the police couldn't find enough evidence and the accuser eventually came clean.

In this this case though, the idea seems absurd. First, because by the sounds of it, her boyfriend didn't know and may never have found out. But also, who would go into the details she did for a simple false accusation? The spitting, slapping, golf club, a player doing the splits on her.... all that stuff seems too oddly specific if someone was trying to concoct a story on the fly. Why add all the humiliation factors? It wouldn't make sense.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I understand the angle, as rare as false accusations are, if one was to make a false accusation it could be in a case of cheating and you wanted to remove responsibility from yourself if your partner finds out. I personally know of a situation like that, however in that case, the police couldn't find enough evidence and the accuser eventually came clean.

In this this case though, the idea seems absurd. First, because by the sounds of it, her boyfriend didn't know and may never have found out. But also, who would go into the details she did for a simple false accusation? The spitting, slapping, golf club, a player doing the splits on her.... all that stuff seems too oddly specific if someone was trying to concoct a story on the fly.

Their position wasn’t that she made it all up, it’s that she was actually upset because she felt guilty about cheating on her boyfriend, not because of all of the things that happened to her.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It has to be rewarding though when you defend someone who is innocent.

Except that the pressure is really on then, because if you lose it's pretty devastating.

[Dion]

Victim-blaming attitudes marginalize the victim/survivor and make it harder to come forward and report the abuse. If the survivor knows that you or society blames her for the abuse, s/he will not feel safe or comfortable coming forward and talking to you.

Victim-blaming attitudes also reinforce what the abuser has been saying all along; that it is the victim’s fault this is happening. It is NOT the victim’s fault or responsibility to fix the situation; it is the abuser’s choice. By engaging in victim-blaming attitudes, society allows the abuser to perpetrate relationship abuse or sexual assault while avoiding accountability for his/her actions.

https://inside.southernct.edu/sexual-misconduct/facts

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I’d say given we are predominantly men on this site, we should read them, and really think about it. And if anyone has boys approaching that age, should sit them down and have them read this. Any male team or league should make this required reading and a frank discussion held. We can’t undo what happened but we need to recognize and prevent it from happening again.

This should be mandatory learning and relating training for any hockey coach in Canada, all ages.

[Yamer]

Text exchange.

McLeod: You said you were having fun??

E.M.: I was really drunk, didn't feel good about it at all after. But I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble. I know I was in the wrong too

Well, that broke my f###ing heart.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This should be mandatory learning and relating training for any hockey coach in Canada, all ages.

I agree. But furthermore, I coached U16 and U18 Girls soccer.

You know what I found to be the most important aspect? Treat them as people and treat them with respect.

Post game. You need to get changed? No problem. I'll wait here. Send the Team Captain out to get me when everyone is decent for the post-game speech.

Its really easy. Everyone wants their privacy respected.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

It must feel real disgusting to be a defence lawyer in cases like this.

In legitimate criminal justice systems, the accused is presumed to be innocent. That is not just a legal principle but a practical approach that defence counsel must adhere to in order to discharge our duties fully.

In the context of bail, the Supreme Court of Canada has described the presumption this way:

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc...18391/index.do

"...The presumption of innocence is “a hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law [that] confirms our faith in humankind”...The presumption of innocence is only satisfied in the bail process when the requirements of [Charter] s. 11(e) are met...As described by Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, the presumption of innocence and the protection of liberty rights mean that “the state should presume each person to be harmless...therefore it is in principle wrong to take coercive measures against people for preventive reasons unless there are very strong justifications for doing so” (Preventive Justice (2014), at p. 53). The Charter therefore protects accused persons from unreasonable terms and conditions of bail.

A while back I helped a father accused of the brutal beating death of his child to be acquitted at trial. The defence credibly advanced a theory it was the mother who was actually responsible. She was accused of same on the witness stand. I suppose looking from the outside, people easily could have thought of the defence lawyers as evil and assumed we must have felt 'disgusting' defending in this manner against what our client was accused of having done.

But the point is he was presumed innocent and it did not make me feel disgusting to deliver the full legal and ethical defence he was entitled to no matter what the evidence appeared to show. And in the end the evidence was not enough to prove he had done anything wrong.

David Milgaard was factually innocent. As a society we did the worst thing possible in taking all of his best years of life from him and locking him up for 23 years for a heinous rape and murder that he had nothing to do with. Objectively the evidence against him was damning. It was also entirely untrue.

We have done similar to so many others it is a reality most Canadians make themselves willfully blind to. If you want to feel disgusting, go spend a day reading here:

https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/

Consider the concluding statement on the page regarding Steven Truscott:

The Court of Appeal commented that Steven had spent “his entire adult life in the shadow” of his wrongful conviction. In response to Steven being awarded $6.5 million in compensation, the Truscotts issued a statement explaining, “Although we are grateful for the freedom and stability this award will provide, we are also painfully aware that no amount of money could ever truly compensate Steven for the terror of being sentenced to hang at the age of 14, the loss of his youth or the stigma of living for almost 50 years as a convicted murderer.” It is extremely fortunate, and worthy of admiration, that Steven has been able to rebuild his life and start a family but the Truscotts will likely never be able to step out fully from the long, dark shadow of Steven’s wrongful conviction.

I am not saying that the evidence and human circumstances we deal with on a daily basis do not get to you sometimes. We are after all human too (contrary to popular opinion...haha). But while legitimately attacking the credibility and reliability of witnesses accusing your client is often not able to be described as 'fun', it truly is a job that someone must do. And in that I feel grateful and an immense sense of duty and responsibility.

Disgust? If feeling that for simply doing what they are legally and ethically required to do, then the defence lawyer is obligated to withdraw from the file.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Text exchange.



Well, that broke my f###ing heart.

It also shows that her saying "I'm so sober" on video was a line given to her. There's no pushback on her saying she was drunk in that text.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I’d say given we are predominantly men on this site, we should read them, and really think about it. And if anyone has boys approaching that age, should sit them down and have them read this. Any male team or league should make this required reading and a frank discussion held. We can’t undo what happened but we need to recognize and prevent it from happening again.

I have to disagree here. For me it is borderline lunacy to insinuate that every male and boy on a team needs to be grilled about how not to assault women or at the minimum not treat them like garbage. This isn't a teaching moment - society is well past that point and is widely aware behavior like this incident is unacceptable.

These were high profile athletes that should have known better and did know better. You raise your children the right way from a young age - to at a basic human level respect themselves as well as all of the men and women they interact with. This case shows what a total failure to instill proper values and behaviors really looks like, and a specific coach or team is certainly not to blame.

Maybe the parents of said players should look at where they dropped the ball so badly that not one of these men felt compelled to stop this before it started, or even just put a stop to it at any point. These are baseline morals of right and wrong here. If you're expecting a coach/team to make it sink in with required reading or lectures, the ship has already left the shore for someone who is capable of this behavior.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I have to disagree here. For me it is borderline lunacy to insinuate that every male and boy on a team needs to be grilled about how not to assault women or at the minimum not treat them like garbage. This isn't a teaching moment - society is well past that point and is widely aware behavior like this incident is unacceptable.

Sadly, I have to disagree. It's impossible to take away all crime because humanity is awful, but absolutely society in general and parents more specificaly need to do a better job raising their young men, especially where sex is concerned, and especially about the agency of women. It's not that long ago we had a judge say a girl should have closed her legs while being raped. A cop suggest that women need to dress differently than to not invite assault.


Boys in general, not just on a team, have to be taught that women are people. One has to look no further than the erosion of women's rights in the US, and in our own backyards, in our own families even, especially in more "traditional" circles.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Maybe the parents of said players should look at where they dropped the ball so badly that not one of these men felt compelled to stop this before it started, or even just put a stop to it at any point. These are baseline morals of right and wrong here. If you're expecting a coach/team to make it sink in with required reading or lectures, the ship has already left the shore for someone who is capable of this behavior.

We have lots of examples of those values being swept aside when boys and young men are trying to impress each other. There’s something about a bunch of young males bonded together - whether in a team, a gang, or an army - that acts as a powerful catalyst for brutal behaviour. Some resist it. Many don’t.

So yes, we should instil respect for women in our sons. But we also need to look at certain institutions and how they foster our ugliest instincts. Organized hockey is one of them. I have a hard time believing a similar scene would have played out with a badminton or chess team.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by MBates

In legitimate criminal justice systems, the accused is presumed to be innocent. That is not just a legal principle but a practical approach that defence counsel must adhere to in order to discharge our duties fully.

{snip}

Disgust? If feeling that for simply doing what they are legally and ethically required to do, then the defence lawyer is obligated to withdraw from the file.

I remember reading a biography "The Case for the Defence" by Edward Greenspan who was (as I'm sure you know) one of Canada's most famous trial lawyers. Now I read this back in the late '80s or early '90s....and it was a fascinating look into the mind of a criminal defence lawyer. He didn't like his clients (often) and said he would never have them to dinner at his house...but....the law entitles and requires them to be provided with the best defence possible. Why? Because losing that means we ALL lose...then none of us is entitled to a defence (welcome to Russia, among others).


MBates, it's ugly, and necessary. Personally I applaud you for your professional choice, and I know quite a few laywers who won't or don't do the same.


(I'm happy I work in tax, and various parts of law are only sidestreets from that.)

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Ped

Unfortunately victim blaming has long been a defense-tactic especially in sexual assault or rape cases, including bringing in sexual history and what they were wearing, and so on. And a lot of judges and juries, sadly, buy into it.

I believe that, unless there is a reason the judge would allow same, that has no longer been permissible in Canada since some time in the early 1980s. The whole "she was wearing a short dress, so she made me do..." or "well, she was with three other guys, so I just thought..." is no longer generally allowed.


As I understand it, in the instant case, with contact #1...where consent initially may have been provided for one act, that didn't mean she also implicitly consented to #2-5 (or whatever number), so defence cannot use that argument.

[InternationalVillager]

I'm wondering if there's any actual evidence of what happened in that room other than the victim's statement. It seems that prosecutors have put together a pretty coherent picture of what happened but I'm unsure what that's based on.

For example, how do they know Dillon Dube did XYZ that night in that room other than just what she says?

If she was as drunk as she says she was, how is her statement considered part of actual evidence? Can't the lawyers say that her statements are not reliable because she has accepted that she was intoxicated well beyond her regular amounts during her testimony.

Hoping someone can clear up the law for me on this one.


After reading the CBC updates....it's just wow. Like Michael McLeod picked up the girl at a bar and she came back to the hotel and they had consensual relations which she was fine with.... but it wasnt enough for him? There are no words.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I'm wondering if there's any actual evidence of what happened in that room other than the victim's statement. It seems that prosecutors have put together a pretty coherent picture of what happened but I'm unsure what that's based on.

For example, how do they know Dillon Dube did XYZ that night in that room other than just what she says?

If she was as drunk as she says she was, how is her statement considered part of actual evidence? Can't the lawyers say that her statements are not reliable because she has accepted that she was intoxicated well beyond her regular amounts during her testimony.

Hoping someone can clear up the law for me on this one.


After reading the CBC updates....it's just wow. Like Michael McLeod picked up the girl at a bar and she came back to the hotel and they had consensual relations which she was fine with.... but it wasnt enough for him? There are no words.

Simple answer: the trail isn’t done yet.

When the trial date was originally set they reportedly had 2 cooperating witnesses.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because, sadly, its effective.

And for the boomer/x generations, the suggestion of promiscuity was frowned upon and shamed for the bulk of their lives (whereas the culture & norms around that have changed drastically in the last 15 years or so).

So leaning on that narrative is generally effective in swaying opinions, even though it's ultimately irrelevant to whether or not the alleged crime was committed.

I wonder what makes more sense, guilt for cheating or negative feelings around being subjected to a coercive gang rape situation. Hmm....

But I guess defense lawyers have to do their jobs at the end of the day...

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by MBates

In legitimate criminal justice systems, the accused is presumed to be innocent. That is not just a legal principle but a practical approach that defence counsel must adhere to in order to discharge our duties fully.

ngl, I heard the Law & Order "bum-bump" in my head as soon as I read this

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It also shows that her saying "I'm so sober" on video was a line given to her. There's no pushback on her saying she was drunk in that text.

I picked that up too. "I'm so sober", said no sober person, ever.