Criminal Defence Law Blog
They take it very seriously in the U.S. “Bloomfield Officer Orlando Trinidad and a fellow officer were found guilty in November of official misconduct, falsifying public records and other offenses.” Officer Orlando was sentenced to 5 years in jail without eligibility for parole.
Source: Officer Convicted Due to Dashcam Video Sentenced to 5 Years – ABC News
Here is Justice Morgan’s ruling in the case. He found that the officers not only planted evidence but also perjured themselves by lying about it to the court. “Here, the false creation of a pretext to search the Defendant’s vehicle, combined with the collusive fabrication of a story by the two lead Officers as to why they came to assist in the traffic stop of the Defendant, certainly amounts to egregiously wrongful conduct.” A read of this judgment is insightful for those who are unfamiliar with the trial process or the form of a Judge’s reasoning.
Source: CanLII – 2015 ONSC 5607 (CanLII)
First of all, congratulations to Kim Schofield for having the determination and skill to expose this so clearly in the trial. Second of all, don’t be surprised or shocked. “Reporters David Bruser and Jesse McLean exposed more than 100 cases of police dishonesty in courts across Canada.” In my experience the false creation of a pretext to search clients’ vehicles is almost the norm. Unjustified searches and officers lying on the witness stand undermines trust in and perverts the legal process and makes them no better than the criminals they say they’re protecting us from.
With four officers charged with obstruction of justice, Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders has done well in leaving no stone unturned to catch rogue cops.
Source: Police must follow the rules: Editorial | Toronto Star
There’s a right way and a wrong way to do everything. So you find your teenage daughter texting or posting nude pics or videos of herself online or to her boyfriend. What do you do? Clearly, you don’t spank her with a mini hockey stick and skipping rope. Find a better way. If she’s under 18, you could (however I don’t recommend it) have her arrested and charged with the criminal offence of publishing child pornography. Think about that one for a minute or two.
A religious couple in Salmon Arm, B.C., have been convicted of assault for “spanking” their daughter with a mini hockey stick and a skipping rope after learning she had sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend on Snapchat.
If you’re thinking of posting a nude or intimate pic or video of your girlfriend or ex without her permission, you should know that not only is it now a criminal offence it is also now a cause of civil action … which means she can sue you and that means that it can cost you a lot. In this case it’s costing the guy $142,000. Find some other way to get even or better yet, forget the drama and just move on.
It’s been four years since an Ontario woman, 18, found out her ex had uploaded an intimate video of her to a porn site, and her case has become an important first
In every criminal trial the onus is always on the Crown to prove guilt. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If a person accused of committing a crime is found “not guilty” (whether by a Judge alone or a jury) it means (and only means) the Crown has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is NOT a declaration of innocence. The two are very different things and the difference is important. For example, in the Forcillo case the finding of not guilty with respect to the first 3 gun shots should not be interpreted that the jury found the shooting to be justified. No such finding was open to the jury. The verdict means that the Crown did not prove Forcillo was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.
Whether it be witnesses who are mistaken or not truthful, police officers or Crown Attorneys seeking a promotion, tunnel vision, confirmation bias, junk science, prosecutions that are too vigorous …. “Embracing a false belief of perfection ignores the fact that innocent people have been, and continue to be, wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. False guilty pleas happen too – innocent individuals often plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence in the hopes of returning to a “normal” life as quickly as possible.” Yes, it could and does happen here.
Why wrongful arrests, convictions and unfair trials could (and probably do) happen in Canada
Source: Reasonable Doubt: Making A Murderer – could it happen here? – NOW Toronto Magazine – Think Free
“The Conservatives were wicked smart in implementing their crime agenda. There is no better example of the Conservatives’ disdain for evidence-based criminal justice policy than mandatory minimum sentences. We are living with the sad results: overcrowded jails, massive costs, reduced public safety, and law after law ruled to be unconstitutional. Minimum sentences and harsh incarceration aren’t effective at reducing crime, and they do little to assist with rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum sentences result in the insidious transfer of discretion from judges to the Crown prosecutors — who have the discretion to drop a minimum sentence in exchange for a plea to a lesser charge. Crown discretion is not reviewable and it’s not transparent.”
Source: More than sunny ways needed to address mandatory minimums
This isn’t about guilt or innocence at this point, it’s about getting to that point. I don’t know if Avery or Dassey are guilty or not and that’s the point. Nobody does. Nobody can without there being a fair trial and this was definitely not a fair trial. For those who are engaged with the docu-serial “Making a Murderer” here is a good article analyzing the trial and the prosecution
Ken Kratz, special prosecutor in the Steven Avery case, is being blasted for his pretrial comments.
What do you think, mere window dressing or meaningful input? Here’s how it works. A petitioner drafts a 250 word plea for action or change and provides names and contact information for 5 – 10 supporters. They find an MP to ‘sponsor’ the petition and when signatures are verified the petition goes up on the site for 120 days. If it gains 500 or more supporters it is certified and presented to the House. The government has 45 days to respond, which could be a polite dismissal or it could result in a formal motion or private member’s bill.
Source: Home – E-petitions
