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

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jg13

https://twitter.com/user/status/1762910527120945594

MBates can say more than me but I always figure a jury trial is chosen by defendantswho have a weak legal case and hope to appeal to emotions on various issues. And consent is one of those. But it may backfire.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Tried as a group?

Makes sense. It just means one trial for all the accused, as opposed to separate trials for each one.

Otherwise, you'd have to have the victim (and all the other witnesses, including the accused) testify at each trial. You'd also have multiple different findings of fact on the same events.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by blankall

Makes sense. It just means one trial for all the accused, as opposed to separate trials for each one.

Otherwise, you'd have to have the victim (and all the other witnesses, including the accused) testify at each trial. You'd also have multiple different findings of fact on the same events.

Makes it easier to point out inconsistencies in the defendants' evidence (and they almost certainly will testify).

[Monahammer]

Not directly related to this ongoing story, but more in relation to the questions brought up about Billeting culture and the CHL:

https://www.tsn.ca/chl/former-peterb...ayer-1.2082086

Awful story today. Probably another big blow against the CHL. How can you really trust other billeting families and parents?

[Yeah_Baby]

legal question: they're individually charged. so if they're trialed as a group, is it possible for the jury to convict on some charges but not all?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Locke

And if you post in it, it tends to jump to the top of the forum. Thats weird isnt it?

I'll put a stop to this.

Oh...wait.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

legal question: they're individually charged. so if they're trialed as a group, is it possible for the jury to convict on some charges but not all?

Yes, definitely.

[Fuzzy14]

https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.ph...ed%20together.

For those interested in learning about Joinder and Severence of criminal proceedings, this resource is useful.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Not directly related to this ongoing story, but more in relation to the questions brought up about Billeting culture and the CHL:

https://www.tsn.ca/chl/former-peterb...ayer-1.2082086

Awful story today. Probably another big blow against the CHL. How can you really trust other billeting families and parents?

Weird how they don’t list the billet’s name. Like expose the creep.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

Weird how they don’t list the billet’s name. Like expose the creep.

I assume because it would then identify the underage player.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Snazu

Give them the ol' paper bag treatment.

I approve

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Not directly related to this ongoing story, but more in relation to the questions brought up about Billeting culture and the CHL:

https://www.tsn.ca/chl/former-peterb...ayer-1.2082086

Awful story today. Probably another big blow against the CHL. How can you really trust other billeting families and parents?

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.ph...ed%20together.

For those interested in learning about Joinder and Severence of criminal proceedings, this resource is useful.

Is Joinder and Severance the bollywood remake of Harold and Kumar?

[FlamesAddiction]

Question for the lawyers, but is it easier to get a mistrial if you choose a jury? I am just thinking that more people, more moving parts, and more chances of error. Maybe they are thinking long term and hoping that a jury member makes a mistake or there is an issue with the selection process, and after enduring one trial, the accuser may back out of a retrial.

It seems like a plausible strategy, but I don't know if that is actually something people hedge their bets on.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Question for the lawyers, but is it easier to get a mistrial if you choose a jury? I am just thinking that more people, more moving parts, and more chances of error. Maybe they are thinking long term and hoping that a jury member makes a mistake or there is an issue with the selection process, and after enduring one trial, the accuser may back out of a retrial.

It seems like a plausible strategy, but I don't know if that is actually something people hedge their bets on.

The hope is for an error in the charge to the jury by the judge, but that's not a mistrial, it's an appeal. Jury selection is not the big deal people think it is from movies and TV. I don't know what you mean by a jruy member making a mistake. Like leaking info or something?

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The hope is for an error in the charge to the jury by the judge, but that's not a mistrial, it's an appeal. Jury selection is not the big deal people think it is from movies and TV. I don't know what you mean by a jruy member making a mistake. Like leaking info or something?

Yeah, it's all in the charge or admissibility of evidence. There's actually less room for appeal because jurors don't provide reasons for their decision.

And a mistrial isn't great, you just get to do absolutely everything over again. Also, hung juries aren't exactly common in Alberta, there's almost always a unanimous decision.

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The hope is for an error in the charge to the jury by the judge, but that's not a mistrial, it's an appeal. Jury selection is not the big deal people think it is from movies and TV. I don't know what you mean by a jruy member making a mistake. Like leaking info or something?

Thanks. Yeah, by mistake I meant maybe leaking something.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No one is forced to go anywhere they dont want too.

It's a bit of a reach to even suggest that as there are other avenues to play competitive beyond major junior.

Also, how do kids from the thousands of communities across the country that dont have "local" higher level teams, plan on playing higher competition without going somewhere else to do so?

The 15-20 age gap is kinda absurd. I don't know how the ages actually break out, but bumping it to 16 or 17 would seem sensible. An elite ecosystem would emerge to fill the vacuum in each major centre; rural kids would still need to relocate but they would retain a lot more control of where/when/how.

This would also mean a lot less nights on the road, less unsupervised time for 20 year olds to pay the hazing forward, etc.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Not directly related to this ongoing story, but more in relation to the questions brought up about Billeting culture and the CHL:

https://www.tsn.ca/chl/former-peterb...ayer-1.2082086

Awful story today. Probably another big blow against the CHL. How can you really trust other billeting families and parents?

Yeah, let's call into question the integrity of all the other billet families in the entire country who have opened up their homes and families lives and try to help these kids, who have to leave their families at such a young age, be as comfortable as possible as they strive to make their dreams of playing pro hockey a reality, just because some pervert out there snuck through the vetting system and did something deplorable.

[Locke]

Sounds like they're planning a 'Boys will be Boys' defence.

I hope nobody buys that.