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

[BOSSY]

I have a good buddy who is on the unit that followed him for the final hours before his arrest and helped with the final arrest... Some pretty erratic behaviour - that hasn't come out yet - that I'll bet will be presented as part of an appeal and not criminally fit defence...

No doubt he did it but will be interesting how/if the defence tries to get him off as not responsible due to mental issues...

[Red Potato Standing By]

Why would the defence wait till an appeal? If they could of went with not criminally responsible defence why not do it from the beginning?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by BOSSY

I have a good buddy who is on the unit that followed him for the final hours before his arrest and helped with the final arrest... Some pretty erratic behaviour - that hasn't come out yet - that I'll bet will be presented as part of an appeal and not criminally fit defence...

No doubt he did it but will be interesting how/if the defence tries to get him off as not responsible due to mental issues...

Mental "issues" and mental illness are not a ticket to "not criminally responsible".

The amount of advanced planning to commit the crime and then try to cover it up looks like the act was carried out with the forethought of repercussions and knowing full well that it was wrong.

[MBates]

I must emphasize I have no idea whether this is part of any plan for the defence in this case, but NCR could be raised after a finding of guilt by the jury but before a conviction is entered.

I imagine that procedural twist would not be very popular around here.

[Slava]

Really?! That seems ridiculous. I am sure there is a good reason that this is allowed, but as a layman I just can't think of it. Seems like something that should have to be raised before you go through all this.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by BOSSY

I have a good buddy who is on the unit that followed him for the final hours before his arrest and helped with the final arrest... Some pretty erratic behaviour - that hasn't come out yet - that I'll bet will be presented as part of an appeal and not criminally fit defence...

No doubt he did it but will be interesting how/if the defence tries to get him off as not responsible due to mental issues...

I'm probably wrong, but I don't think that you can appeal based on wanting to change your defense.

I think you can appeal based on errors and procedural mistakes. But you can't say, well we didn't fight this based on mental illness, but we'd like to try that now. The justice system isn't a dart board where they can keep retrying cases until a defense sticks.

[Northendzone]

To me it would be a shame if somehow he was able to get off on some mentally not fit to stand trial As it sure seems there was enough to indicate he planned this out

[MBates]

New defences on appeal can happen, but are very rarely accepted.

As for NCR being raised post finding of guilt, a major part of why it is allowed is littered all over this discussion board (see the Vince Li thread). People have such an unwarranted irrational prejudice against mental illness that real defences would likely get ignored by juries if the accused was identified as mentally ill before their deliberations.

This case analyzes it in greater detail if you are interested:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...canlii104.html

[BOSSY]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Why would the defence wait till an appeal? If they could of went with not criminally responsible defence why not do it from the beginning?

I could be wrong but I don't think they have entered any kind of defence at this point - keeping in mind the crown has just rested and the thought is they won't...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MBates

New defences on appeal can happen, but are very rarely accepted.

As for NCR being raised post finding of guilt, a major part of why it is allowed is littered all over this discussion board (see the Vince Li thread). People have such an unwarranted irrational prejudice against mental illness that real defences would likely get ignored by juries if the accused was identified as mentally ill before their deliberations.

This case analyzes it in greater detail if you are interested:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...canlii104.html

If someone is convicted of 1st degree murder with a lot of planning and preparation, doesn't that speak against them being NCR? Like he was fit to stand trial (because we're here), so I just don't understand how that could be a finding at this point. Perhaps it's because I don't want to see it though - I do understand my bias!

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by MBates

I must emphasize I have no idea whether this is part of any plan for the defence in this case, but NCR could be raised after a finding of guilt by the jury but before a conviction is entered.

I imagine that procedural twist would not be very popular around here.

I had no idea that was even possible. They Greyhound guy defended from the outset he was not criminally responsible. Of course, there were over 40 witnesses that saw him do it.

To essentially get two trials, one to see if the crime is proven, and then a second to see if you can be found not guilty for other reasons, would not sit well with many people, let alone on this board.

[transplant99]

Did Garland not go through psychological evaluation before the trial though? Would an NCR defense not have to be based on that rather than at a later date when the crown and defense have already had the chance to address it?

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Did Garland not go through psychological evaluation before the trial though? Would an NCR defense not have to be based on that rather than at a later date when the crown and defense have already had the chance to address it?

Not in the de Grood case I believe. Could be wrong though...

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

To me it would be a shame if somehow he was able to get off on some mentally not fit to stand trial As it sure seems there was enough to indicate he planned this out

Determination of fitness to stand trial would be motioned for and determined before the actual trial. The A. Levin trial in fact first saw the defence try to claim unfitness twice - first on physical fitness and second, mental fitness. Source - having served on the second of those juries.

[SeeGeeWhy]

I wrote a really long post and lost it on an accidental bookmark bar click. Glad that happened because I was detailing my logic based on everything I've read on the trial so far and it's caused me to reconsider this response. I do not wish to repeat so much of what is already out there (too much), and my opinions are not sensitive to what a horrible scar this is on our city's heart.

Thanks to the other members who commented on my last post which turned into a bit of a derail. I have always understood the process to be that an NCR could only be pursued after a verdict was given. Thank you to MBates for clarifying. I now take my understanding as perhaps an observation of what is merely a common but savvy tactic of defense strategy. Mbates, your commentary on mental health perspectives in the public is apt foil in my view. I had so many questions about the way this trial played out, and your comments have allowed me to become more steadfast on my previous speculation of what the defense is doing.

I'm not a lawyer, but Section 16 of the criminal code states:

"No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong."

If that is truly the legal test... that the defendant has to be deemed a discerning moral agent, capable of making choices between right and wrong... well, I am sorry to say it, but I don't think Douglas Garland would pass that test. Not because he didn't understand PERFECTLY what he was doing, but that he had NO CAPABILITY of determining that it was morally wrong. And from what we know about him, the picture is that he has been like this for a very long time; perhaps his entire life. Is there a mental disorder that could cause this? Or is the temporal quality of mental health, especially in law, only considered in short term segments?

I am just going to say it. I do not think there is any question he performed the actions he is accused of, and perhaps worse. If we are to believe any of the back story, those actions were totally unjustifiable. Not even mildly understandable. So he gets cut out of some IP that didn't work out... so what? He didn't lose out on any money. You do not do what happened over a business disagreement that he may totally been wrong about, yet also had zero financial consequences. I am also not a mental health professional, but in my opinion no sane person does what he did, in the way he did it, for the reasons that are presented.

But too way too much was left unsaid during the trial. I just sense that the defense wanted to move on from the question of "did he do it?" as quickly as possible... so they could start digging into the question "did he know it was wrong?".

Terrible. I really hope I am wrong. I really do.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I had no idea that was even possible. They Greyhound guy defended from the outset he was not criminally responsible. Of course, there were over 40 witnesses that saw him do it.

To essentially get two trials, one to see if the crime is proven, and then a second to see if you can be found not guilty for other reasons, would not sit well with many people, let alone on this board.

Entrapment and certain abuse of process arguments work this way too. Not just for NCR.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Slava

If someone is convicted of 1st degree murder with a lot of planning and preparation, doesn't that speak against them being NCR? Like he was fit to stand trial (because we're here), so I just don't understand how that could be a finding at this point. Perhaps it's because I don't want to see it though - I do understand my bias!

Fitness to stand trial and a NCR are completely different things. The test for fitness is very low (as in you don't need very much functionality to be found fit) and it relates to being able to assist in your defence during trial.

NCR is retroactive and deals with what your mental state was at the time of the alleged offence. There is a presumption you are not NCR and the burden of establishing that you are is not that easily met.

In many cases proof of planning and deliberation for first degree murder would probably doom an NCR argument, but they are certainly not always incompatible. You can make an elaborate plan for killing demon aliens or whatever you think your victims are due to paranoid delusions.

[DionTheDman]

In this case though, there was plenty of evidence that Garland had his eyes/obsession fixed on Alvin Liknes, and meticulous planning based around certain details of Mr. Liknes' life, such as the lock used in the home. I would be beyond shocked if NCR were advanced.

[Montag]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

I'm not a lawyer, but Section 16 of the criminal code states:

"No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong."

If that is truly the legal test... that the defendant has to be deemed a discerning moral agent, capable of making choices between right and wrong... well, I am sorry to say it, but I don't think Douglas Garland would pass that test. Not because he didn't understand PERFECTLY what he was doing, but that he had NO CAPABILITY of determining that it was morally wrong. And from what we know about him, the picture is that he has been like this for a very long time; perhaps his entire life. Is there a mental disorder that could cause this? Or is the temporal quality of mental health, especially in law, only considered in short term segments?

I am just going to say it. I do not think there is any question he performed the actions he is accused of, and perhaps worse. If we are to believe any of the back story, those actions were totally unjustifiable. Not even mildly understandable. So he gets cut out of some IP that didn't work out... so what? He didn't lose out on any money. You do not do what happened over a business disagreement that he may totally been wrong about, yet also had zero financial consequences. I am also not a mental health professional, but in my opinion no sane person does what he did, in the way he did it, for the reasons that are presented.

But too way too much was left unsaid during the trial. I just sense that the defense wanted to move on from the question of "did he do it?" as quickly as possible... so they could start digging into the question "did he know it was wrong?".

Terrible. I really hope I am wrong. I really do.

I don't think you have this right. For example, De Grood was found to be NCR (not criminally responsible). De Grood had no capability of determining what he was doing was wrong clearly. He thought that the other people at the party were vampires or whatever and thought that killing them was HELPING people. (Let's not get into how you determine this is what people actually thought)

Douglas Garland has not introduced any evidence. He cannot now say that he thought that the victims were monsters and he was defending himself or helping society by killing them. The Crown's evidence actually directly contradicts this. They showed a degree of planning, evidence of calm and rational behaviour and they established another motive (revenge for the patent and possibly some sort of sexual purpose). Also evidence that he tried to cover up the crime (there was evidence that the Liknes' house was cleaned up a bit and there was a DNA removal chemical on the Garland farm) indicates that he knew it was wrong, otherwise why would he hide it?

The test is not if any sane person would do it. The test is more subjective. Did they actually/personally think that what they did was not wrong/the right thing to do?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Montag

I don't think you have this right. For example, De Grood was found to be NCR (not criminally responsible). De Grood had no capability of determining what he was doing was wrong clearly. He thought that the other people at the party were vampires or whatever and thought that killing them was HELPING people. (Let's not get into how you determine this is what people actually thought)

Douglas Garland has not introduced any evidence. He cannot now say that he thought that the victims were monsters and he was defending himself or helping society by killing them. The Crown's evidence actually directly contradicts this. They showed a degree of planning, evidence of calm and rational behaviour and they established another motive (revenge for the patent and possibly some sort of sexual purpose). Also evidence that he tried to cover up the crime (there was evidence that the Liknes' house was cleaned up a bit and there was a DNA removal chemical on the Garland farm) indicates that he knew it was wrong, otherwise why would he hide it?

The test is not if any sane person would do it. The test is more subjective. Did they actually/personally think that what they did was not wrong/the right thing to do?

See my posts above. He can't argue that yet given he didn't call such evidence before the jury is asked to find guilt on the crown's case. He could then call evidence to seek an NCR finding after that. Again, I'm not saying he will but it is procedurally allowed.