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

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

just found this. Sounds like they can.

The shift to a judge-only trial means arguments, evidence and other information discussed in the absence of the jury can now be disclosed.

Here are some things jurors didn’t hear about the case:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl...08da0d19&ei=53

Wow. Having the jury 'run the gauntlet' through the protestors was asinine. As soon as the protestors arrived, the jury should have been entering through a separate entrance. No jury for any trial should ever have to face a mob trying to sway their opinion.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Sled

It's the thread of lynch mobs and victim blaming from what I've read so far with some actual information on the process from people who live this everyday without the sensualism of national attention.

Hopefully more public will be as passionate about why the number of incidents reported are going up but the number of charges laid are in decline. Habitual criminals are being released daily. We know its hard to come forward which means we don't know how much of a real problem this is in our country. AND don't take my word for it, Check out statscan site for yourself.

The result of guilty or not guilty may come down to a technicality one way or the other but the true justice will be why so much effort was put forward to convict 1st time offenders (high profile I understand, with I'm sure most people will agree have a micro chance to repeat) and not the serial criminals out there that are making Canadian streets unsafe to walk.

I hope the crown takes as much care and time to convict career criminals as they do with people who are 1st time offenders and minuscule chance to repeat.

to be Canadian these days.

Wow. This is just ... all over the place. Please tell me you don't think the victim here are the accused?

Your attitude may be why charges are declining. The victims don't want to got through this process?

"We don't know how big of a problem this is"..."Check out Statscan for yourself" ? What are you even saying?

Proving a case like this beyond a reasonable doubt, or not, is well beyond the realm of a "technicality."

I hope that prosecutors take the time and effort to prove EVERY case that comes before them regardless of who the defendant is or is not.

You would like criminals locked up longer? Me too. You want your taxes to increase to pay for it? Didn't think so.

And sensualism is not the word that you think it is.

[RedHot25]

there are some very odd posts in this thread.

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by Buff

Matlock? You're old! as am I

There’s a new Matlock. It’s pretty good.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Yes, I would say believing the lawyers are making fun of you, which they deny, is a bias.

The purpose of our legal system is to ensure each side is represented, so simply because a lawyer chose to go into criminal law he or she is a dick? This is clearly showing your bias.

I was not interested in pursuing criminal law, but it is certainly a worthy and honourable choice to make, in order to ensure the system is fair.

Really for me depends on what they did.. what if they were goading the jury on? maybe they were not and the jury members were hypersensitive and had an axe to grind and wanted to convict their clients, but if that were the case do you really think they'd almost purposefully get kicked off the jury.

And with respect to your last comment, it's a living and im not saying criminal defence lawyers are uniformly terrible humans, am sure there are a lot of public defenders or whatever they are called with good intentions who even end up in the private sector, but calling the high rate ones in the private sector who basically defend only rich people accused of terrible crimes honorable, yeah agree to disagree. In my books thats a scummy morally ambigious job much of the time and I'll readily admit my bias to that sentiment. I'd rather hang out with the criminals themselves if I had to choose it's more of an honest job in my books. Purely my personal opinion acknowledge my own journey shaped me having that view.

[traptor]

really strange behavior from Formenton's lawyers, having two separate incidents like this.

It feels intentional.

I wonder if there is some inner politics amongst the different defense lawyers. Too many cooks.
Maybe they felt like their client is better served going through the Judge.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by united

From The Athletic, Formenton's representation involved in both.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/636...ry-discharged/

"A previous mistrial was declared on April 25. At the time, the reasons for the declaration were protected by a publication ban, which has since been lifted because of the election for the case to proceed by judge alone.

That mistrial occurred after a juror reported that a member of the court — Dudding — spoke to her at a local market during the lunch break.

Brown, Dudding’s co-counsel, told the judge that his understanding of the situation was that there was an accidental and innocuous interaction during which Dudding and the juror were next to each other in line for lunch and his colleague acknowledged the awkwardness in a benign way.

That juror, who was later called in front of the judge and attorneys, described the interaction differently, stating that Dudding spoke to her in line, and referenced there being a lot of “head-nodding” that morning. The jury had recently heard the Crown’s opening statement."

One would think the Upper Canada Law society may have a thought or two on this…..

[Jason14h]

A trial by judge seems a lot better for the defendants IMO

Look at all the people on this board who already assume these guys are guilty because “no women would want that” or something similar

The emotion of the jury would certainly come into play where as the judge should be able to remove emotion and bias

Conspiracy theory me thinks this was a great strategy by the defense lawyers

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

A trial by judge seems a lot better for the defendants IMO

I'd think so too, but the defendants opted for a jury in the first place.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sorry...what? Protestors?

What are they protesting? We dont have a verdict yet. Like? Set the hockey players free? Lock them up? Deliver sandwiches to the jury so grocery line foul-ups dont happen?

What are they standing for?

supporting E.M. I believe

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'd think so too, but the defendants opted for a jury in the first place.

Until they felt a sea change looking at the jury reactions to testimony maybe? Who knows.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

just found this. Sounds like they can.

The shift to a judge-only trial means arguments, evidence and other information discussed in the absence of the jury can now be disclosed.

Here are some things jurors didn’t hear about the case:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl...08da0d19&ei=53

Carroccia said she was informed that a lawyer unrelated to the trial was discussing the case on the radio either May 2 or 5 and disclosed what floor and room the complainant was testifying from.

WTF?!?!? How the hell does this come up in a radio interview?

[FlamesAddiction]

Even if he was purposely trolling that juror, there would be no way of knowing or assuming that it would result in a note followed by a dismissal of the jury. It would be just as likely to end up in that juror being biased against his client. It makes no sense to try that.

I think people are looking into it too hard. The simplest explanation is that the juror doesn't like that lawyer and wanted to get him in trouble, or that they perceived something that wasn't real. People do it all the time when they don't like someone.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

One would think the Upper Canada Law society may have a thought or two on this…..

Both allegations were denied by Dudding, and the judge did not appear to scold her in either event (judges love to scold), but jesus christ. Two separate juries had issues with co-counsel?

where there is smoke there is probably fire. Maybe that was strategy or maybe lead counsel has to reconsider his co-counsel next time.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

A trial by judge seems a lot better for the defendants IMO

Look at all the people on this board who already assume these guys are guilty because “no women would want that” or something similar

The emotion of the jury would certainly come into play where as the judge should be able to remove emotion and bias

Conspiracy theory me thinks this was a great strategy by the defense lawyers

They would've chosen a trial by jury, so it was up to them. There are pros and cons to both - one being a potentially easier appeal of a jury trial.

I do not do criminal law, but i don't think i would want a jury trial unless what i did was perhaps morally justified / ambivalent. If i wanted a judgment on the actual facts and the application of the law, i would probably go judge.

Sexual assault - I'm probably using a judge.
Murdering a Healthcare executive - jury for sure.

[Sled]

Originally Posted by Titan2

1.Wow. This is just ... all over the place. Please tell me you don't think the victim here are the accused?

2.Your attitude may be why charges are declining. The victims don't want to got through this process?

3."We don't know how big of a problem this is"..."Check out Statscan for yourself" ? What are you even saying?

4.Proving a case like this beyond a reasonable doubt, or not, is well beyond the realm of a "technicality."

5.I hope that prosecutors take the time and effort to prove EVERY case that comes before them regardless of who the defendant is or is not.

6. You would like criminals locked up longer? Me too. You want your taxes to increase to pay for it? Didn't think so.

7. And sensualism is not the word that you think it is.

1. No, but they are innocent until proven guilty. EM has been bashed in this thread and online (more so on social media content than CP)

2. Victims are not coming forward because the cases are being dropped and people with history are free to repeat. Feeling of futility due to career criminals getting away scott free. So what chance would a victim have of accusing someone without a history at all. I want stiffer sentences for both types of criminals.

3. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../00007-eng.htm (Table 2) Edit: WE SHOULD Read the info and trends and educate OUR selves rather than listen to someone else's take on them is what I'm trying to say.

4. You have a point there.

5. Unfortunately the stats point otherwise. To many to give enough attention too.

6. Yes, the Liberals love giving money away to foreign entities with little value to Canada. Scale back foreign spending and protect the people who's money it is that is being donated with little to no oversite even. A Farmer shouldn't feed their neighbors if their own children are dying of starvation. A Canada at the top of GDP lists has a duty for foreign aid, a Canada at the bottom should fix what's broken in Canada.

7. Sensualize is not the right word, Grand Standing. Media with paywalls, connect creators trying to make a name for themselves for eventual profit. Profits are more import then facts it seems these days. Reassuring people that the opinion they already formed is correct is more important than displaying the facts in an unbiased presentation.

In my experience Journalism in Canada is an absolute joke today. It's either bought and paid for political party propaganda (CBC and Rebel present the facts to engage their audience for profit and clout) or a narrative driven buy foreign owned hedge funds to drive profitable opinions for themselves and their investors. Postmedia.

If they are found guilty, hit them HARD with results of their actions and send a real message. If they are found innocent then I hope they take this experience and speak out how close they came to losing everything so the next generation has more respect for themselves and the public they are around. More important, speak out that victims need to come forward because it's not always futile and there are loads of people out there who want justice for those victims. Including me.

Apologies, I'm a conversationist not a novelist so my points don't always land the way I want in writing.

[GullFoss]

I just saw a photo of Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding. Let's just say for at least one of these two people, making fun of the appearances of the jury members is kind of like pot talking smack about the kettle.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

A trial by judge seems a lot better for the defendants IMO

Look at all the people on this board who already assume these guys are guilty because “no women would want that” or something similar

The emotion of the jury would certainly come into play where as the judge should be able to remove emotion and bias

Conspiracy theory me thinks this was a great strategy by the defense lawyers

I do find it interesting that a bunch of guys on a hockey board are biased against a bunch of guy hockey players.

[CliffFletcher]

Edit: nvm, already addressed

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Accusing lawyers of behaving unprofessionally constitutes a bias now? these are people who make their living defending alleged sex pests, not much of a leap to see them behaving like dicks

Good luck if you're ever charged with something and have someone who thinks like you on the jury.