Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #16

[Tinkerbel1]

The fact he threw the decision in his client's lap could be a distancing of himself from it. Of course he has to take direction from his client, but to state it publicly feels like "Don't look at me. I didn't choose it."

You can read it damning or weak... still no further ahead.

Sorry to sound obtuse, but where did it say KR was throwing it (the bail application) in his client's lap? He said once he's gone through the disclosure they would make decisions and he'ld await instructions from his client (that's pretty normal speak for a lawyer). I don't understand where your perception of "Don't look at me. I didn't choose it" came from.

Nope, still no further ahead...yet.

 

[Sillybilly]

Sorry to sound obtuse, but where did it say KR was throwing it (the bail application) in his client's lap? He said once he's gone through the disclosure they would make decisions and he'ld await instructions from his client (that's pretty normal speak for a lawyer). I don't understand where your perception of "Don't look at me. I didn't choose it" came from.

Nope, still no further ahead...yet.

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/calg...room-1.2768976

"I'm still going through the disclosure, we'll make decisions once I get through all that and get instructions from my client," said Ross."

Matter of interpretation, but IMO, that statement is a lot different than saying "Oh absolutely bail will be applied for. This is an innocent man sitting in jail, and I will be advising my client that we make application for bail as soon as possible".

 

[Tinkerbel1]

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/calg...room-1.2768976




Matter of interpretation, but IMO, that statement is a lot different than saying "Oh absolutely bail will be applied for. This is an innocent man sitting in jail, and I will be advising my client that we make application for bail as soon as possible".

No lawyer, IMO would be saying that. Especially since he has not finished looking through the disclosure, and as has been mentioned before, is not a grandstander. There's nothing that can be done at this point so IMO, KR is saying minimal.

 

[deugirtni]

Is there a specific time that an accused must wait for to apply for bail? Does it have to be at an already scheduled hearing, or can an accused ask for a court date just for that very reason? I know I asked yesterday.. but.. I dont' think the answer was clear on 'when does an accused enter their plea'? Does that really not get done until the prelim hearing some 9 months from now?? If KR were my lawyer and I was in DG's position, and I was innocent, I'd sure be ticked off at KR's responses to everything about me.
In case there is anyone else as naive as me, does everyone know that when an appeal is made after a conviction, it is not because of the verdict, but only because of some point of law that wasn't handled properly? I just read that within the last few days, and I hadn't known that before. I've seen cases (say on TV news) where a defence lawyer will be asked immediately following a guilty verdict for his client, if he will appeal, and the lawyer immediatley says 'yes'. I always assumed it was because they felt the verdict itself was not fair for whatever reason, when in fact they have to find some kind of error on something about the trial itself, like that the judge erred in counselling the jury before their deliberations. No wonder people hate lawyers.

 

[news.talk]

Is there a specific time that an accused must wait for to apply for bail? Does it have to be at an already scheduled hearing, or can an accused ask for a court date just for that very reason? I know I asked yesterday.. but.. I dont' think the answer was clear on 'when does an accused enter their plea'? Does that really not get done until the prelim hearing some 9 months from now?? If KR were my lawyer and I was in DG's position, and I was innocent, I'd sure be ticked off at KR's responses to everything about me.
In case there is anyone else as naive as me, does everyone know that when an appeal is made after a conviction, it is not because of the verdict, but only because of some point of law that wasn't handled properly? I just read that within the last few days, and I hadn't known that before. I've seen cases (say on TV news) where a defence lawyer will be asked immediately following a guilty verdict for his client, if he will appeal, and the lawyer immediatley says 'yes'. I always assumed it was because they felt the verdict itself was not fair for whatever reason, when in fact they have to find some kind of error on something about the trial itself, like that the judge erred in counselling the jury before their deliberations. No wonder people hate lawyers.

It is my understanding that Defence Council must ask for a bail hearing and submit the necessary documents.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Personal experience (no link )

At one time I was an advocate for a woman who was stalked by her ex-husband. He was ultimately charged and convicted of criminal harassment. At one point during the trial, his very well known, successful defence lawyer turned around, made a sweeping gesture towards us and boomed "and the only reason these people are in court today is to watch my client squirm". During recess, I approached him and lambasted him wrt that statement, saying he knew full well that we were there to see justice served. His face went red and he puffed up when announcing "I can say anything I want in defence of my client".

Guy's a jerk but wins many cases .. not that one

There's a saying that comes to mind when I think of defence lawyers - 'throw a pile of $*#T against the wall and see what sticks!' Lol, they are shameless buggers, bless their hearts, somebody's gotta do that dirty job

 

[Sillybilly]

No lawyer, IMO would be saying that. Especially since he has not finished looking through the disclosure, and as has been mentioned before, is not a grandstander. There's nothing that can be done at this point so IMO, KR is saying minimal.

No lawyer has to wait for disclosure to proclaim his client will plead not guilty. So what part are you considering grandstanding?

DP (Millard's lawyer) may be considered a grandstander (while he is "zealously representing" and whether we like his style of not) ... but even Smich's lawyer, the low-key, man of few words, Thomas Dungey, strongly indicated when Smich was arraigned, that his client would would be pleading NG via the use of his wording "defending the case vigorously":

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...sma-murder-case-to-plead-not-guilty-1.1305972

The lawyer for Mark Smich says the Oakville, Ont., resident will plead not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Tim Bosma, the Hamilton man who disappeared earlier this month after taking two men on a test drive of his truck.

"We will be defending the case vigorously," Thomas Dungey said Thursday, after Smich appeared in a Hamilton court to face the murder charge.

full direct quote from:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...in-tim-bosma-murder-case-to-plead-not-guilty/

“At this point, Mr. Smich will be pleading not guilty and we will be defending this case vigorously,” he said, before declining to answer any questions

Anyway, JMO

 

[Lalalacasbah]

This could also be strategy: if KR requests bail and the judge denies it because he might see the accused as a threat to the public, or the nature of evidence in disclosure or if suspect is a flight risk.

A bail denial would look very bad for DG and paint him as not innocent. If bail is declined the public/potential jury might have a negative perception of him. Asking for bail might be a big risk. Just thoughts...

 

[Krystine]

Is there a specific time that an accused must wait for to apply for bail? Does it have to be at an already scheduled hearing, or can an accused ask for a court date just for that very reason? I know I asked yesterday.. but.. I dont' think the answer was clear on 'when does an accused enter their plea'? Does that really not get done until the prelim hearing some 9 months from now?? If KR were my lawyer and I was in DG's position, and I was innocent, I'd sure be ticked off at KR's responses to everything about me.
In case there is anyone else as naive as me, does everyone know that when an appeal is made after a conviction, it is not because of the verdict, but only because of some point of law that wasn't handled properly? I just read that within the last few days, and I hadn't known that before. I've seen cases (say on TV news) where a defence lawyer will be asked immediately following a guilty verdict for his client, if he will appeal, and the lawyer immediatley says 'yes'. I always assumed it was because they felt the verdict itself was not fair for whatever reason, when in fact they have to find some kind of error on something about the trial itself, like that the judge erred in counselling the jury before their deliberations. No wonder people hate lawyers.

I am obviously as naive as you are I always assumed too that the verdict was thought to be unfair if an appeal was launched.
Isn't that just one more example of our judicial system favouring the criminal?

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Time served is a consideration by the judge at sentencing, but if found of guilty of 1st degree murder with the mandatory life sentence, there is no provision for time served. Sorry, can't find a link right now, but it has been discussed in many other cases.

WRT bail application, it depends on what evidence and information is presented by the prosecution if they are opposing release on bail and what the defence is able to input wrt reasons the accused should be released on bail.

from very long but informative article:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ng-case-bail-canada+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca





Even if bail is not applied for pre-trial, and an ultimate conviction was rendered at trial, an appeal could be launched and an application for bail could still be made at that time pending appeal.

from same link above:

Actually, the accused can consent to their own detention (instead of applying for bail). In extraordinary circumstances, "time-served" is a consideration at 1 1/2 times the actual time served. Apparently this is a consideration in 'extraordinary circumstances' (which I'm not sure what those are). :/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_(Canada)

 

[Sillybilly]

Actually, the accused can consent to their own detention (instead of applying for bail). In extraordinary circumstances, "time-served" is a consideration at 1 1/2 times the actual time served. Apparently this is a consideration in 'extraordinary circumstances' (which I'm not sure what those are). :/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_(Canada)

Actually in one of my recent posts, I alluded to the fact that the accused can choose not to apply for bail:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-16&p=10973918#post10973918

Whether guilty or not, I suspect DG may not wish to apply based on fears for his personal safety

Not sure where you are reading “exceptional circumstances” wrt time served (your link related to bail, not time served). Time served does not relate to / factor into bail applications. It is taken into consideration after conviction, , and as previously stated, it NOT a consideration when there is a life sentence:

Would prefer to provide legal resources, but to save time am giving a Wiki instead:

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_sentencing_in_Canada

Credit for pre-trial custody: …

Pre-trial custody has no effect on a life sentence, and does not affect when a person can apply for parole. It is sometimes referred to as "dead time".

 

[CentralAlberta]

I am obviously as naive as you are I always assumed too that the verdict was thought to be unfair if an appeal was launched.
Isn't that just one more example of our judicial system favouring the criminal?

Can the prosecution apply for an appeal if a not guilty verdict is made but the trial was not handled properly?

There is a granted appeal right now in North Carolina for a Canadian charged with murdering his wife based on the fact the judge turned down one of the defence's witnesses because he had trouble determining if witness was an expert in the field the defence was claiming he was an expert in. Although I think the husband is guilty, I do feel he deserves a fair trial. Scary thought though, that husband could walk free if next jury finds him not guilty.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

No lawyer has to wait for disclosure to proclaim his client will plead not guilty. So what part are you considering grandstanding?

DP (Millard's lawyer) may be considered a grandstander (while he is "zealously representing" and whether we like his style of not) ... but even Smich's lawyer, the low-key, man of few words, Thomas Dungey, strongly indicated when Smich was arraigned, that his client would would be pleading NG via the use of his wording "defending the case vigorously":

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...sma-murder-case-to-plead-not-guilty-1.1305972



full direct quote from:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...in-tim-bosma-murder-case-to-plead-not-guilty/


Anyway, JMO

It is my opinion that DG's lawyer keeps everything under wraps until he presents it...just a gut feeling. To me grandstanding would've been KR standing up in court yesterday and saying that "my client is innocent....and we will be defending this case vigorously and we will be applying for bail shortly". Honestly, if I were DG's lawyer, I wouldn't give anyone one single indicator as to what my plan of action was...I would just do it. There's no need to disclose intention to anyone about anything. I wouldn't want to tip the prosecution off to anything. Very high profile case...it could be KR is not ready to go into "defense" mode until he is fully prepared. Sign of a smart lawyer. He doesn't want to make any mistakes I'm sure and he hasn't finished looking over the documentation. That is his prerogative. He has a responsibility to DG and to take direction from DG...but I don't' think DG is going to want any mistakes made in this situation so he's probably handed it over to KR and said "make this go away...I'll do whatever you say" ...or KR has already told DG..."if you want me to represent you...then you remember I'm the lawyer. If you want to defend your own case, go for it, I'll see you later." There could be lots of different scenarios. The fact the KR said nothing yesterday, says nothing about the disclosure documentation's value, KR's opinion of his client or his client's guilt, or anything else of that matter. It means...."we will make a decision after I've seen all the disclosure as to the bail application". Thorough and prepared. That would be the type of lawyer I'ld want if I were in DG's shoes. I actually think that he mentioned a bail application at all is a good sign.

JMO

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Can the prosecution apply for an appeal if a not guilty verdict is made but the trial was not handled properly?

There is a granted appeal right now in North Carolina for a Canadian charged with murdering his wife based on the fact the judge turned down one of the defence's witnesses because he had trouble determining if witness was an expert in the field the defence was claiming he was an expert in. Although I think the husband is guilty, I do feel he deserves a fair trial. Scary thought though, that husband could walk free if next jury finds him not guilty.

Yes, there is a right of appeal in Canada. This means that a higher level court will review the case for any deficiencies, called legal errors, that would warrant overturning the conviction or reducing the sentence.

http://criminallawappeals.ca/General-Appeal-Info.php

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Actually in one of my recent posts, I alluded to the fact that the accused can choose not to apply for bail:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-16&p=10973918#post10973918



Not sure where you are reading “exceptional circumstances” wrt time served (your link related to bail, not time served). Time served does not relate to / factor into bail applications. It is taken into consideration after conviction, , and as previously stated, it NOT a consideration when there is a life sentence:

Would prefer to provide legal resources, but to save time am giving a Wiki instead:

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_sentencing_in_Canada

Only credit in equivalent to time and a half is now permitted, and even then only in extraordinary circumstances. As a result, defendants are now much less willing to consent to detention, and Crown prosecutors are less willing to consent to the release of the accused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_(Canada)

The above is in regards to bail, and "accused consent to detention" instead of bail application.

You have to read the article closely, its a little confusing (I think).

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Actually in one of my recent posts, I alluded to the fact that the accused can choose not to apply for bail:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...June-2014-*ARREST*-16&p=10973918#post10973918



Not sure where you are reading “exceptional circumstances” wrt time served (your link related to bail, not time served). Time served does not relate to / factor into bail applications. It is taken into consideration after conviction, , and as previously stated, it NOT a consideration when there is a life sentence:

Would prefer to provide legal resources, but to save time am giving a Wiki instead:

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_sentencing_in_Canada

Credit for pre-trial custody: …

Pre-trial custody has no effect on a life sentence, and does not affect when a person can apply for parole. It is sometimes referred to as "dead time".

Very interesting....that's not why my "link" said...it's Wiki as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_(Canada)

The comment is in regards to sentence length and not to bail application.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

No lawyer, IMO would be saying that. Especially since he has not finished looking through the disclosure, and as has been mentioned before, is not a grandstander. There's nothing that can be done at this point so IMO, KR is saying minimal.

Again... it's just pure speculation. It's like the employee that knows the boss made a dumb, potentially career ending decision for their department. When the higher ups start asking questions, it's hands up, "Hey, I just work for the guy. I wasn't in on the decision, and I just did what I was told. Don't paint me with that brush."

KR has a suave, matter of fact, dry, confident style, so it's hard not to respect that. I suspect he's a professional, but at the same time, he's human. It just sets off my qualifying and distancing meters... disclaimer applies.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Personal experience (no link )

At one time I was an advocate for a woman who was stalked by her ex-husband. He was ultimately charged and convicted of criminal harassment. At one point during the trial, his very well known, successful defence lawyer turned around, made a sweeping gesture towards us and boomed "and the only reason these people are in court today is to watch my client squirm". During recess, I approached him and lambasted him wrt that statement, saying he knew full well that we were there to see justice served. His face went red and he puffed up when announcing "I can say anything I want in defence of my client".

Guy's a jerk but wins many cases .. not that one

Oh! Lol! :giggle:

If that were my lawyer I would've been mortified! But hey, it takes all kinds...obviously, he's effective!

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Again... it's just pure speculation. It's like the employee that knows the boss made a dumb, potentially career ending decision for their department. When the higher ups start asking questions, it's hands up, "Hey, I just work for the guy. I wasn't in on the decision, and I just did what I was told. Don't paint me with that brush."

KR has a suave, matter of fact, dry, confident style, so it's hard not to respect that. I suspect he's a professional, but at the same time, he's human. It just sets off my qualifying and distancing meters... disclaimer applies.

Maybe....maybe not. I don't really think KR would throw his client under the bus like that...but then I don't think most people would, just because I wouldn't. But, there's all kinds.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I am obviously as naive as you are I always assumed too that the verdict was thought to be unfair if an appeal was launched.
Isn't that just one more example of our judicial system favouring the criminal?

No, an appeal is launched by either side when it loses it's case. Prosecution can appeal an aquitted charge, and defense can appeal a 'guilty' charge. Whoever appeals would have the 'burden of proof' as to why the case should be looked at again.

I've kinda felt that its Part 2 of a trial...just another opportunity to win the case (either side)....usually based on a technicality or something obscure...perhaps something done blatantly wrong in court. Just another kick at the can.

JMO