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

[Northendzone]

So, if/when the jury delivers a guilty verdict, does the defence have grounds to appeal by saying they did not present a defence?

[DionTheDman]

no

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

He should get the Jeffrey Dahmer broomstick treatment

Unfortunately, the broomstick death is a myth.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

Unfortunately, the broomstick death is a myth.

Wasn't it a small medal "broomstick"

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

If there's a silver lining, it's that the Crown put forward a very compelling case against Garland based on what little physical evidence was available.

For someone who apparently researched this extensively and tried to cover up his heinous crime, it looks like Garland will have failed badly in his attempt.

For someone that was trying to be really careful and well planned using his own truck was a big mistake. It was easily identified and brought the cops to his place within a couple days. If he had a generic rental truck he probably would have had a few more days to clean things up at the farm. The job of the police would have been much tougher if his sister didn't tip them off about the truck. I think that initially the police mentioned there was a few hundred people that attended the estate sale. That would be a lot of people who could be potential suspects (ie. Casing the house to return later for a robbery.) I would have thought that using a rental car/stolen car would be covered in murder 101.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Also slightly relates to my question a few pages ago too. Maybe Mbates could answer this... How much of the evidence is seen by the defence prior to entering a plea? Would they have known that they were up against a stacked deck and could they have tried to counsel their client that it may not be worth proceeding? Does this happen?

While I am quick to point out the police and Crown often fail to provide everything we are entitled to, there have been no such concerns raised in this case. The defence would have had all of the evidence well in advance.

The main case that solidified disclosure as a constitutional right, R v Stinchcombe, is from Calgary in fact and was a case worked on by lawyers in the firm I started out with. In short, an accused is entitled to receive most disclosure prior to making a decision on plea in part because he or she might plead guilty when faced with an insurmountable case for the Crown.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...m/808/index.do

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MBates

While I am quick to point out the police and Crown often fail to provide everything we are entitled to, there have been no such concerns raised in this case. The defence would have had all of the evidence well in advance.

The main case that solidified disclosure as a constitutional right, R v Stinchcombe, is from Calgary in fact and was a case worked on by lawyers in the firm I started out with. In short, an accused is entitled to receive most disclosure prior to making a decision on plea in part because he or she might plead guilty when faced with an insurmountable case for the Crown.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...m/808/index.do

Is there an obligation for the defence to disclose any evidence, witnesses, or alabi's in has prior to the trial?

[Jimmy Stang]

If my memory serves, didn't a CP member see a similar truck near Airdrie around the time of the investigation? I don't have time to find that post right now (sorry), but I seem to recall someone thinking that they saw the truck at some point and reported it to police.

Now that we know the timeline a little better, I wonder where that particular sighting fits in. Or maybe I'm totally mis-remembering this.

[Hockeyguy15]

Mbates I'm curious as to what your thoughts on the case are?

What do you think are the strongest and weakest arguments the Crown presented?

[killer_carlson]

i'm curious how this accused - i will no longer name him - does in custody this weekend. I suspect they will keep him segregated in Remand which may make it easier for him.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Montag

This trial almost certainly cost millions to run. It is worth it.

Maybe? I don't know what trials cost, but Judges, Crown, police are paid the same whether they worked this trial/investigation, or not. The accused may be on Legal Aid? His lawyers aren't getting millions.

What are the other costs? Keeping the accused in custody.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/e...ime_costs.html

Researchers at Iowa State University recently attempted to run the numbers. They wanted to include not just the direct costs—the damaged property and lost careers and prison upkeep and lawyer fees—but also the broader and more intangible societal costs, such as more frequent police patrols, more complicated alarm systems, and more expensive life-insurance plans. If we knew how much a crime costs society, their reasoning went, maybe we could better decide how much money to spend trying to stop it.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

If my memory serves, didn't a CP member see a similar truck near Airdrie around the time of the investigation? I don't have time to find that post right now (sorry), but I seem to recall someone thinking that they saw the truck at some point and reported it to police.

Now that we know the timeline a little better, I wonder where that particular sighting fits in. Or maybe I'm totally mis-remembering this.

Everyone from here to Ontario 'saw' the green truck... >.<

[MBates]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is there an obligation for the defence to disclose any evidence, witnesses, or alabi's in has prior to the trial?

The accused has to give 30 days expert notice if they plan to call an expert witness but beyond that there is really no defence disclosure obligation.

In practical terms, if you are going to advance an alibi you should give reasonable notice because the police will then have an opportunity to investigate it. If you do not give them that opportunity then your alibi evidence may be severely discounted in value.

You also have to give reasonable notice of Charter-based arguments if you intend to make them but most of those are legal arguments that would be decided by the judge and not the jury.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Mbates I'm curious as to what your thoughts on the case are?

What do you think are the strongest and weakest arguments the Crown presented?

Not to be coy but arguments have not been made yet. I would like to see summaries of those first because I have not really very closely followed the evidence (and media reports of the evidence very often do not include significant portions of cross-exam that are effective for the accused).

That said, the Crown apparently has what are pictures of bodies on the property. There one day, and gone the next. I predict they will use those heavily in closing argument.

If they are smart they will not comment specifically on the accused having not testified (since he has a constitutional right to remain silent) but they will say something along the lines of there being no explanation whatsoever for the photos of the bodies and DNA on handcuffs and tools other than the Crown theory it said it would prove in its opening statement.

As for weaknesses, again, I just don't know if there are enough issues raised in the Medical Examiner evidence to give a juror a nagging doubt about whether the alleged victims could still be alive. I think I read a report about the defence having the expert confirm that there was no way to say when or how the DNA got onto things at the farm and that the ME acknowledged the alleged victims could still have been alive in spite of the scene at the home.

I will say, however, the judge continually going on at length about the jurors needing to take care of themselves and unnecessarily re-stating over and over how much counselling they might need and how hard the evidence has been is problematic. It is not language consistent with impartiality. If I were the Crown I would be wishing and asking he would stop that.

What is critical at this point is getting the law and the jury instructions correct. The Crown needs to insist on language that is as favorable to the accused as possible. And not be inflammatory in their closing address.

A conviction no matter how compelling will get overturned if the jury gets wrong instructions that go to the substance of the case.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by MBates

I will say, however, the judge continually going on at length about the jurors needing to take care of themselves and unnecessarily re-stating over and over how much counselling they might need and how hard the evidence has been is problematic. It is not language consistent with impartiality. If I were the Crown I would be wishing and asking he would stop that.

Interesting, I never thought those comments would be an issue. I just assumed it was because they were seeing and hearing graphic things (the gore pics from the computer, potential torture/murder tools, pictures of blood and potentially dead bodies).

Would comments like this give the Garland reason for appeal (assuming he is found guilty) on their own, or would he need more than that?

[DionTheDman]

I don't see how comments about the jurors' well being would be an issue. The comments (as I read about them) weren't suggestive of anything to do with the accused. Objectively speaking, the evidence was graphic and disturbing.

Agree though, the jury charge would be very interesting to hear.

[Northendzone]

It crossed my mind that his warnings maybe be an issue, but I guess I just wanted to see the crown lock this guy down without any issues.

I am thinking the jury is back with a decision by Wednesday.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Interesting, I never thought those comments would be an issue. I just assumed it was because they were seeing and hearing graphic things (the gore pics from the computer, potential torture/murder tools, pictures of blood and potentially dead bodies).

Would comments like this give the Garland reason for appeal (assuming he is found guilty) on their own, or would he need more than that?

I don't think I have heard anything bad enough to create a ground of appeal yet (though telling them to go home and talk to friends and family about their feelings is getting quite risky) but at any moment a single comment can cause a mistrial. Free-styling about how the evidence must be affecting them pre-deliberation is a bad idea in my view.

Edit:

Yeah, this is not proper stuff until after the case...it presupposes way too much in terms of facts that they have not heard argument about yet and they have not found as proven yet...and is inconsistent with the instructions he must necessarily give them:

“While these symptoms can be distressing, for most people they will quickly resolve,” said Gates. “They’re a part of the natural healing process of adjusting to a powerful event, making sense out of what happened, and putting it into perspective.”

Gates said there are several things jurors can do to help themselves through the stress.

“First of all, give yourselves permission to experience your reaction to what you have seen and heard. It is, as I suggest, important for you to recognize that you have been through a difficult—even distressing—experience,” he said.

“Do not try and block out thoughts of what has happened. A process of gradually confronting what has happened during the course of this trial will, I believe, assist you in making your way through this experience.”

Gates encouraged the jurors to reach out and speak with those who “love and support ” them to talk about the feelings they might be experiencing.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...and-trial.html

All of this is post verdict appropriate...not now. And it is just so unnecessary to do any of this unless you are trying to make media headlines.

[DionTheDman]

While I do practice law, I've never touched criminal law outside of school, so it's neat to read some of these insights from someone that fights that fight. Thx!

[SeeGeeWhy]

MBates, there have been references made to discoveries like a journal, tapes, etc on the Garland property as the trial has gone on. Is there a chance the defence was able to argue those things inadmissible as evidence? I mean... the journal especially has me intrigued.

Could this all be setting up for the defence to pursue a not criminally responsible label after the verdict and sentencing?