WARNING: This story contains a rude language.
Of everything that the jury does not know in the case against Alain Bellefeuille as the deliberations begin, and, as with all the jury trials, that is more than the general public could think, perhaps the most significant is a violent note that is in the Bellefeuille truck.
The note without date and without sign, attributed to the man accused of murdering a police officer and trying to kill two others during a well -being check to eastern Ottawa in 2023, is aimed at the “majestic” (think: royalties or monarchy, according to the judge) and all those who apply loyalty to him. Those who “came with their boats”, stepped on this piece [peace]”And” destroyed the earth. “
The note curses them. He says that “they will burn alive” and “everyone will die a horrible death!”
Weeks at the trial, the crown sought to introduce the note as evidence. A photo had been provided to the defense lawyer as part of the dissemination process many months before, but was not discussed during the prior motions, when the lawyers of both sides argue before a judge about what should be admissible or not during the trial, among other issues.
‘A real connection there’
On April 25, after the jury has been fired for the day, the assistant lawyer of the Corona Louise Tansey argued that the note is evidence of motive and animus, that the Bellefeuille shooting of three provincial police officers of Ontario was essentially a manifestation of the violence required in the note against the “Majesty.”
“It is not lost in anyone through these procedures that the OPP uniform in fact has a crown. That is something that has been repeatedly shown throughout this. [trial]; It is in OPP vehicles; It is on the ridges used by the sergeant. Mueller and const. Lauzon and all the officers who attended, “Tansey told the Judge of the Superior Court Robert Pelletier.
“There is a real connection there, and there are some expressions of both animals towards that group of people, and also, I say, reason, in terms of the deserving of dying, burning alive and, more specifically, dying a horrible death. There can be no doubt the death that Sergeant Mueller died, a horrible one.”
Link ‘monumentally weak’, argues the defense
The defense lawyer Leo Russomanno argued that the “monumentally weak” link between the people described in the note and the police that acts as crown agents is not clear enough or direct enough, which calls it “dangerously harmful evidence.”
“I say that it is particularly detrimental because he is an indigenous man in judgment by murder, because he gives rise to the stereotypes of an indigenous people that is anti-establishment, who seeks to perpetrate violence against the State because they do not recognize the authority of the State,” said Russomanno.
Pelletier put on the side of the defense and ruled the inadmissible note, writing that if “it has any relationship in the mental state of Mr. Bellefeuille at the time of the shooting, the connection is speculative and the value of the evidence is very limited.”
In his support, the judge wrote that the note is “clearly a lament of the effects of colonization”, and that the author’s biggest complaint “is against those responsible for the appropriation of the land.
“There is no expressed aggression towards the police,” Pelletier ruled.
The intimidating behavior led to the jury’s dismissal
In jurors, it happens a lot that jurors do not know, from routine cases and programming problems to disagreements about law between lawyers and more.
Sometimes problems arise regarding jurors themselves, as in the current trial of five hockey players accused of sexual assault in London, Ontario.
During Bellefeuille’s trial, two jury members were dismissed on separate ones, and CBC can now inform what led to dismissal of the first jury April 30.
On April 29, the jury’s facade wrote a note to the judge that was addressed to such a sensitive issue that members of the public were asked, including the media, to clear the Chamber so that the judge and lawyers could discuss it between them.
When Open Court resumed, it was learned that the Portaperson had mentioned the behavior of the intimidation of another jury that made some panel members feel freely express their opinions, and surprisingly, that the behavior had been happening since day 1 of the trial a month before.
‘Fear of reprisals and comments’
The goalkeeper was asked to identify the jury involved, and he did it when he passed another note to the judge. The next day, the lawyers and the judge agreed to dismiss the jury involved, but the defense wanted each remaining jury to be interrogated one at the same time about whether they could continue and focus on the evidence day after day.
The crown opposed, saying that the jury’s dismissal would handle the problem, and that the jury could receive instructions to raise any problem with the court individually.
The judge put on the side of the crown, and the jury was brought back to the courtroom.
“Certain members of the jury have felt that their views could not express themselves freely and openly without fear of reprisals and your comments that have described me as intimidating sometimes,” Pelletier told him.
“I do not want to give him the impression that his efforts and his dedication to his task as a jury have not been appreciated. However, he feels, and I have decided that it is necessary to download it as a jury at this time.”
The judge reminded the woman her obligation not to talk about discussions with the jury with anyone and fired her of gratitude.
2nd jury dismissed
A week later Another jury was firedThis time, after an OPP officer took him when he did not arrive at the court on time on May 9. The decision to give the trip was carried out jointly by the court and the OPP personnel, but the judge never ordered it.
“This causes me any concern. Not on the subject of whether there has been any interference, but in the issue of whether it could reasonably perceive that this risk exists. As we know, justice must be done and should be seen to be done,” Pelletier told lawyers in the absence of the jury.
The footage of the official’s chamber was reviewed, and the crown and the defense spoke to him private in the small lawyer in the room not far from the hall from the courtroom.
Back in court, the crown argued that it did not dismiss the jury, saying that there was no evidence that something unpleasant had happened. The judge decided that the optics was bad independently, and the jury was dismissed.
Pelletier did not blame the officer, the court or jury personnel, and said that everyone was simply trying to implement the procedures as soon as possible.
