AROUND THE LEAGUE - 25-26

[Tciso]

Good to see those 5 were aquitted. I was afraid that the courts were looking to break new ground, and combine the "yes means no" movement with the current distain for Hockey Canada and railroad these 5. They were probably better off with just a judge, instead of a jury, as the judge has to follow the law, where juries can be unpredictable and emotional. Poor bastards still lost 2 years of their prime in their careers, and it will impact the remainder of their careers too. Wonder if there is a civil suit for lost wages??

[Hockey Widow]

Those five kids are outliers.

NHL players are paragons of virtue, by and large.

Any second line centres in the group?

[UWSaint]

Dumb question from south of the border, but did these guys waive their right to a jury (or is their a jury right in Canada)? There are a certain number of offenses where I think what we call "bench" trials (judge, no jury) makes sense, but I wouldn't have normally thought a case like this would fall into that category. Because this case is ultimately about credibility, isn't it? And if you need a unanimous jury to convict (which you do in the states), then you only need one out of 12 people to think the witness is not credible to get a hung jury. But rolling the dice with one judge? I think that's a strategy you see here from time to time when the state's case is technically difficult to prove or sometimes when the defendant seethes bad dude and you trust the judge more than the jury to stick to the evidence presented.

Also interesting, I see the crown is weighing appeals options. For what its worth, in the American system, if a defendant is acquitted, there can be no appeal. The only state initiated appeals in criminal cases are interlocutory--before the trial, on a legal issue like whether evidence will be excluded or whether a charge was dismissed before trial.

I didn't follow the trial at all, but I do think generally that the further and further removed you get from the event, the more likely the system gets it wrong -- more likely to acquit the guilty (because memories are by their nature less reliable); more likely to convict the innocent (because their ability to marshal a defense is particularly difficult -- their witnesses can't be found, don't remember, they don't have their date books to locate alibis, etc.) And I think there's been the claim (I haven't followed the story closely) there wasn't a full investigation at the time; if true, other evidence (whether incriminating or exculpable) is simply never recovered.

I have no idea whether these guys committed the crimes they were charged with. Media is never a full broker of information -- whether deliberately taking sides or just a function many people simply will not talk. The adversarial justice system is far from perfect, but it tends to be a better arbiter of truth than media. Still, I don't know whether the decision is right or wrong, (and if the defense was consent, then these are still brutish young men even if they committed no crime). Its interesting that the police and Hockey Canada have taken their lumps -- and perhaps deservedly so. But if everyone in the process came to the conclusion the judge did (the complainant is not credible), was it really a cover up? Could protection of these young men have been motivated not because they are (relative) star athletes, but because if their lives could be ruined by claims that didn't seem credible?

[UWSaint]

They were probably better off with just a judge, instead of a jury, as the judge has to follow the law, where juries can be unpredictable and emotional.

Juries are also more likely to engage in nullification -- acquitting someone the evidence shows is guilty because they don't like the law or the prosecution or out of some general sense of fairness.

But the defense must have read the situation as you do, and they won, so what do I know?

[Hockey Widow]

The case had, I think, 2 previous juries dismissed for various reasons. It came down to declaring a mistrial or having a bench verdict. All parties agreed to proceed rather than have a mistrial and the judge took control. There is a right to a jury trial in Canada. The whole case was wrought with difficulties and delays.

In Canada there is no double jeopardy. Both sides are free to appeal a verdict. It is easier to get a case overturned when it is a jury trial. Much more difficult when it is a bench trial. In this case the judge was painstakingly clear in delivering her verdicts. For the most part her decision was based upon the lack of credibility she found for the plaintiff, E.M. Appeal courts do not like to overturn verdicts that are based upon credibility of witnesses as there is a belief that the trier of fact is best severed to assess credibility.

[UWSaint]

The case had, I think, 2 previous juries dismissed for various reasons. It came down to declaring a mistrial or having a bench verdict. All parties agreed to proceed rather than have a mistrial and the judge took control. There is a right to a jury trial in Canada. The whole case was wrought with difficulties and delays.

In Canada there is no double jeopardy. Both sides are free to appeal a verdict. It is easier to get a case overturned when it is a jury trial. Much more difficult when it is a bench trial. In this case the judge was painstakingly clear in delivering her verdicts. For the most part her decision was based upon the lack of credibility she found for the plaintiff, E.M. Appeal courts do not like to overturn verdicts that are based upon credibility of witnesses as there is a belief that the trier of fact is best severed to assess credibility.

Thanks!

[Megaterio Llamas]

Wids beat me to the punch

[Megaterio Llamas]

Those five kids are outliers.

NHL players are paragons of virtue, by and large.

Any second line centres in the group?

Lol McLeod is I think a center, but more of a fourth liner if memory serves. I think his brother is a better player than he is.

[Megaterio Llamas]

@UWSaint - here's an excerpt from The Athletic's live trial blog today:

Both juries were dismissed following complaints from jurors that defense counsel had acted inappropriately. In the first incident, Justice Carroccia declared a mistrial when a juror alleged improper communications between one of the defense attorneys and a juror during a lunch break. In the second incident, the judge dismissed the jury but did not declare a mistrial.

That’s because when defense attorneys initially asked for a mistrial, they also proposed continuing the trial in front of Carroccia alone.

“All five defendants will be asking for a mistrial,” Megan Savard, who spoke for the defense, told the court. “However, with the Crown’s consent … we would be prepared to reelect and continue the trial in front of your Honor.”

Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham argued that an inquiry into the juror complaint would be a sufficient way forward and raised concerns that the Crown had presented much of its evidence with a jury — not a judge alone — in mind. But the Crown accepted the defense’s proposal to move forward with a judge-alone trial. That decision spared the complainant from a return to the witness box, where she was questioned over nine days, and where she’d have to recount it all again in front of a new jury.

“The judge has heard all the facts so far,” said criminal defense lawyer Sam Goldstein. “Rather than declare a mistrial and start the whole thing over again, one of the remedies is (continuing) judge alone.”

Criminal defense lawyer Nikolas Lust said avoiding a mistrial was the most appropriate course of action, both in considering E.M.’s testimony and court resources.

In reacting to the decision to dismiss the jury a second time, Cunningham said that the Crown was faced with two “undesirable options,” but would “obviously prefer the one that doesn’t cause further harm, or doesn’t further traumatize (E.M.).”

That the trial proceeded by judge alone meant that Carroccia heard the remaining testimony and evidence and that none of the testimony or evidence that was previously presented in front of the jury would need to be reintroduced.

[2Fingers]

Was there not a settlement between HC and the plaintiff? Or were those the previous ones?

[Megaterio Llamas]

Was there not a settlement between HC and the plaintiff? Or were those the previous ones?

Yeah, that's right, Hockey Canada settled out of court. They had a fund set aside for this sort of thing.

[Hockey Widow]

Was there not a settlement between HC and the plaintiff? Or were those the previous ones?

Yes I think she settled for 3.5 million. When the press started digging it brought to light the whole incident and the press would not let it go. Hockey Canada had to address it. It was through media pressure and then victims groups that the Crown finally laid charges. All along the Crown has said that they did not think they had sufficient evidence to get a conviction. The investigating police force also felt shows not credible and had not recommended charges.

To me the issue should have been about Hockey Canada culture but there was no criminality in that.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Last thing from me on this; I haven't been following this story at all, but just in reading the live coverage on The Athletic briefly today, it looks like Carter Hart and one of the others (Alex Formenton?) came through the trial looking better than the other three. Perhaps Hart will get another chance to resume his career; he is far and away the most valuable player involved. Formenton has retired from hockey and is working in construction. The other three played hockey in Europe last season. Some of these guys came off as total douchebags.

[dangler]

It was through media pressure and then victims groups that the Crown finally laid charges. All along the Crown has said that they did not think they had sufficient evidence to get a conviction. The investigating police force also felt shows not credible and had not recommended charges.

Comment from Thai Trang, London Police Services:
https://x.com/LPSChiefTruong/status/194 ... es-here%2F

[Todd Bersnoozi]

Lol McLeod is I think a center, but more of a fourth liner if memory serves. I think his brother is a better player than he is.

Not sure when these guys would be cleared to play, but I wouldn't mind Mike McLeod. Yah, he prob more of a bottom 6 guy, but he's a RS centre and a faceoff ace. I thought the Nucks should consider him b4 we picked up Lindholm last season.

Cal Foote is somewhat interesting. He can be our new Juulsen/Desharnais project and maybe we can assign him to Abby, so he can do the splits there. *LOL*

I heard Carter Hart might draw heavy interest from the Oil. He might be a key for them. Wherever these guys end up, just keep them away from any young ladies.