The calculation: when the defendant testifies
I am Katie Nicholson, one of the CBC reporters who cover the trial.
With Carter Hart entering yesterday in the witness box to testify, a very worn legal strategy may have been at stake.
McLeod’s lawyer, David Humphrey, made it clear that he would not call evidence. We still do not know if the other former world junior hockey players will also testify, but they may not need to do it.
The defense lawyer with headquarters in Toronto, Leo Adler, says that it is not uncommon, in a case in which there is coacusado, simply call one of them to testify, especially if the defense teams are working in collaboration.
“Hopefully everyone has more or less the same theory of defense, and hopefully just one person, perhaps the most articulated … can literally testify on behalf of everyone else,” says Adler, who is not involved in this trial but is speaking as an observer.
The other defense equipment can use that witness to add issues of observations that help them confirm their general defense.
That is essentially what we saw play as Hart gave evidence that can be useful for other players, especially testifying that Cal Foot was completely dressed when he did the divisions about them and she was laughing. This would disagree with EM’s accusation that he made the naked divisions on his face.
Adler says that the decision to testify is ultimately the accused people, but their lawyers would have to ask:
“How do you use my client better? How do I show that there is a reasonable doubt? How do I show that the main witness of the crown lacks credibility and reliability?”
Adler says that because this is now a judge trial (after the jury’s discharge a couple of weeks ago), Hart is also likely to be the only person who testifies. In fact, he says, it is a common strategy.
“The judge is supposed to know the law and appreciates that he does not need five people who say the same over and over to make the point.”
