Douglas Garland Trial - Guilty- 1st degree- 3 counts / 75 years no parole.

[Robbob]

The police are doing a hell of a job piecing this together. Pretty much sign sealed and delivered at this point.

[Nyah]

What does it generally take for a judge to issue a directed verdict? How often does something like that happen? Or can that actually happen in Canada?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Nyah

What does it generally take for a judge to issue a directed verdict? How often does something like that happen? Or can that actually happen in Canada?

I thought that they could only do that for an acquittal if there was lack of evidence.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Nyah

What does it generally take for a judge to issue a directed verdict? How often does something like that happen? Or can that actually happen in Canada?

Directed verdict of acquittal is all that is possible. Judge cannot direct a jury to convict. Even where guilt is certain on the evidence, the jury has the power to acquit.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

While I agree completely, I suppose one of the issues may have been what exactly the prosecution can, or was willing to offer in exchange for a guilty plea in this case.
These are horrible 1st degree murders, by several criteria. Life without parole for 25 should be min, not max.
Sigh

Life without parole is the min. And if convicted I cannot see any scenario where he would not get consecutive parole ineligibility.

[puckedoff]

Is there a point in the trial where the jury can decide they have seen enough, and issue their verdict?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Is there a point in the trial where the jury can decide they have seen enough, and issue their verdict?

I can't see that being allowed, it would totally undermine the whole point of a trial. They have to sit through what the Crown presents and what the defence presents, if they just sat through part of it they could potentially miss out on something that would change their mind.

[Ryan Coke]

I would imagine the defence has the right to present their case first. I can't imagine the jury can just say 'you can stop now, we don't want to hear it'.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Is there a point in the trial where the jury can decide they have seen enough, and issue their verdict?

Sure, then they can send him straight to the Gulag. All hail our glorious leader... oh wait, we have due process. Damn civilization getting in the way of mob rule.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by MBates

Life without parole is the min. And if convicted I cannot see any scenario where he would not get consecutive parole ineligibility.

So does that essentially mean no chance of parole for 75yrs? If so, would you suspect that is why they would have decided to go ahead with a trial in this case?

Basically I am wondering if there would have been no offer from the prosecution that would have made it worth his while to plead guilty so he figured he may as well take his chances on a technicality or something in the trial that might work in his favor?

[burn_this_city]

They probably wouldn't make a deal with a triple 1st degree murderer.

[Luder]

Originally Posted by greyshep

So does that essentially mean no chance of parole for 75yrs? If so, would you suspect that is why they would have decided to go ahead with a trial in this case?

Basically I am wondering if there would have been no offer from the prosecution that would have made it worth his while to plead guilty so he figured he may as well take his chances on a technicality or something in the trial that might work in his favor?

I think someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, but I'm almost certain Garland is just a monster who wants the family to live through more pain and anguish by going through the motions of the trial.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

They probably wouldn't make a deal with a triple 1st degree murderer.

I agree it wouldnt be all that palatable to make a deal with one, however I would think they would have some incentive to not have to go through a public trial and have to sit through and endure all the emotions that would bring back to the surface.

But maybe the family is not involved in that choice?

Also wonder if the crown looks at these things from a financial perspective? A trial like this likely costs millions of dollars to the taxpayer. Does that play a role?

[Kjesse]

With the DNA evidence, assuming it isn't shaken, that should seal this case closed. Horrible crime. This was a very thorough investigation. The only thing I wonder about is why they went back for the burn barrel many months later, that seems like a mistake.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Is there a point in the trial where the jury can decide they have seen enough, and issue their verdict?

No way, and nor should they be able to do that. Both sides must have full opportunity to present.

[Otto-matic]

DNA on license plate of #Garland truck--was Kathy Liknes-Mohrbutter said

[automaton 3]

Does anyone know how many witnesses the defence intends to call?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by greyshep

So does that essentially mean no chance of parole for 75yrs? If so, would you suspect that is why they would have decided to go ahead with a trial in this case?

Basically I am wondering if there would have been no offer from the prosecution that would have made it worth his while to plead guilty so he figured he may as well take his chances on a technicality or something in the trial that might work in his favor?

I would expect he would only take life sentence with 25yrs without parole to give him the chance to get out of prison alive. If I'm the prosecution I want non concurrent sentences. I don't see a reason getting made.

[DionTheDman]

Watching the trial right now.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Watching the trial right now.

I don't think the general public is allowed to be on their phones while watching. There were some tweets yesterday about the judge reminding everyone in the court about it, so if you are in the courtroom you may want to not be on your phone.