Laura Babcock: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich charged w/ Murder in the First Degree #2

[SnooperDuper]

You have to wonder about the knock-on effects of the TB trial on the LB trial though.

The TB case sounds the strongest and easiest to prove, and it is the first trial. DM has only one life to give. If DM is convicted:

- Will he challenge the LB charges at that point? What could be possibly win at that point, because freedom would not longer be a possible outcome?

- Witnesses who may have been scared to testify against him in the LB case will no longer fear him if DM is already sentenced to life.

- There would be more social pressure of witnesses not to defend DM, and more negativity from the public against those who do testify in DM's favour at the LB case, after the TB case.

- Witnesses that never could have imagined DM to be a murderer will have their beliefs challenged by DM's conviction in the TB case.

- DM could no longer put forward his honour/integrity/character as a defense, as he has in the TB case.

- DM once said, "I didn’t do it…They might as well accuse me of having been to the moon. There’s nothing real about it." Once be becomes everyone's most despised astronaut, how much credibility will people give to his words?

- Murders of strangers are uncommon, but murders of intimate partners occur with depressing regularity. It will be easier for jurors to imagine DM's guilt in the LB case after the TB one.

 

[Juballee]

You have to wonder about the knock-on effects of the TB trial on the LB trial though.

The TB case sounds the strongest and easiest to prove, and it is the first trial. DM has only one life to give. If DM is convicted:

- Will he challenge the LB charges at that point? What could be possibly win at that point, because freedom would not longer be a possible outcome?

- Witnesses who may have been scared to testify against him in the LB case will no longer fear him if DM is already sentenced to life.

- There would be more social pressure of witnesses not to defend DM, and more negativity from the public against those who do testify in DM's favour at the LB case, after the TB case.

- Witnesses that never could have imagined DM to be a murderer will have their beliefs challenged by DM's conviction in the TB case.

- DM could no longer put forward his honour/integrity/character as a defense, as he has in the TB case.

- DM once said, "I didn’t do it…They might as well accuse me of having been to the moon. There’s nothing real about it." Once be becomes everyone's most despised astronaut, how much credibility will people give to his words?

- Murders of strangers are uncommon, but murders of intimate partners occur with depressing regularity. It will be easier for jurors to imagine DM's guilt in the LB case after the TB one.

RBBM

As it has been so kindly pointed out, there is no death penalty in Canada, so saying that he has only one life to give isn't really appropriate here. In Canada, many people found guilty of murder are given a 25 year sentence, which allows them to be released from prison in 25 years or less if they are paroled early. Seeing as how the defendants are both 30 or under, they both have a reason to try to avoid a second conviction, even though it would likely run concurrently with their first conviction, should they be convicted. I doubt that they would just give up and be resigned to spending the rest of their lives in jail if they lose the first trial, I bet they will even bother with appeals, just because that's the way things work here.

I haven't heard anything about witnesses being afraid to testify, and considering that the defendants are both just as securely in jail now as they will be during the trial, I can't see that making a difference.

Otherwise this is implying that witnesses will change their testimony depending on public pressure, or their opinion of the outcome of a previous trial, which is immoral and illegal. The witnesses have a duty to tell the truth, even if it is not what people want to hear. Changing their testimony according to how the first trial goes is a concept that I hope they are not even considering, personally. If witnesses are going to change their testimony because of public pressure, shame on the public for allowing their emotions to force witnesses to distort the truth.

And are the witnesses in danger of being subjected to negativity from the public? Why would the public be negative towards witnesses, they did not commit a crime? Wouldn't that require the media to spin it negatively first? If the witnesses are expecting to be treated negatively by the public and the media, where is their incentive to tell the truth? If that fear of being ostracized by the media would change their testimony, the media would likely be banned from naming them between the trials as well to prevent a miscarriage of justice, I would think.

And in the end, wouldn't that just incentivize all future witnesses to not come forward for fear of the media? If this is the case, then the media and public are a bigger threat to the witnesses, and therefore the truth, than the defendants themselves are.

 

[SnooperDuper]

RBBM

As it has been so kindly pointed out, there is no death penalty in Canada, so saying that he has only one life to give isn't really appropriate here. In Canada, many people found guilty of murder are given a 25 year sentence, which allows them to be released from prison in 25 years or less if they are paroled early.

But parole would require both that DM admitted to his crimes, and was rehabilitated. You cannot be paroled after 25 years if you are unrepentant and still claim innocence. Many believe that psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated. In DM’s case, life could mean life, and he has only one life to live.

Seeing as how the defendants are both 30 or under, they both have a reason to try to avoid a second conviction, even though it would likely run concurrently with their first conviction, should they be convicted. I doubt that they would just give up and be resigned to spending the rest of their lives in jail if they lose the first trial, I bet they will even bother with appeals, just because that's the way things work here.

Again, denying guilt all the way goes against the possibility of parole, as does multiple murder convictions, where DM would have to win parole in each case. If DM hopes for parole, admitting to his guit and pleading guilty would be the first step.

I haven't heard anything about witnesses being afraid to testify, and considering that the defendants are both just as securely in jail now as they will be during the trial, I can't see that making a difference.

Meeting someone free in the street after testifying against them in court is a chilling experience. If a witness against DM knows that he is secure in jail permanently, it frees them to give truly damaging testimony without fear.

Otherwise this is implying that witnesses will change their testimony depending on public pressure, or their opinion of the outcome of a previous trial, which is immoral and illegal. The witnesses have a duty to tell the truth, even if it is not what people want to hear. Changing their testimony according to how the first trial goes is a concept that I hope they are not even considering, personally. If witnesses are going to change their testimony because of public pressure, shame on the public for allowing their emotions to force witnesses to distort the truth.

Those testifying in favour of DM’s good character may have a change of heart.

Character witnesses would not be telling “the truth”, just their subjective viewpoint, which may change after the outcome of the first trial.

A character witness is someone who testifies in court on your behalf. This witness testimony is usually to the effect that you have a reputation for honesty and integrity and that you are not someone who is likely to have engaged in the alleged criminal behaviour. Evidence from character witnesses may be compelling enough in and of themselves to raise a reasonable doubt and destroy the Crown’s case.

http://torontocriminaldefence.com/c...f-criminal-defence-articles-by-tushar-k-pain/

And are the witnesses in danger of being subjected to negativity from the public? Why would the public be negative towards witnesses, they did not commit a crime? Wouldn't that require the media to spin it negatively first? If the witnesses are expecting to be treated negatively by the public and the media, where is their incentive to tell the truth? If that fear of being ostracized by the media would change their testimony, the media would likely be banned from naming them between the trials as well to prevent a miscarriage of justice, I would think.

And in the end, wouldn't that just incentivize all future witnesses to not come forward for fear of the media? If this is the case, then the media and public are a bigger threat to the witnesses, and therefore the truth, than the defendants themselves are.

Witnesses like SB and the RBEG will attend the trial to report facts. Other witnesses, like character witnesses, will only be sharing opinions. Opinions can change.

Certainly all witnesses may be named by the media after the publication ban ends at the end of the trial. Character witnesses that support DM would certainly be seen in a negative light by the public, who are more interested in the hard evidence and justice. We can expect character witnesses to be one of the few instances where direct evidence would support DM. As such, we can expect their testimony and identities to get a fair bit of media play. The media is far more kind to DM than the public is on media message boards. If I were DM’s character witness, I would fear the public, not the media.

DM’s vast wealth will also come into play. A character witness who has gained nothing more than friendship from DM would be far more credible than one that had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from him. It is natural to ask, what has or will the witness gain financially from the defendant? Most people would consider someone who has benefited financially in a significant way from DM to be biased.

 

[Alethea Dice]

But parole would require both that DM admitted to his crimes, and was rehabilitated. You cannot be paroled after 25 years if you are unrepentant and still claim innocence. Many believe that psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated. In DM’s case, life could mean life, and he has only one life to live.



Again, denying guilt all the way goes against the possibility of parole, as does multiple murder convictions, where DM would have to win parole in each case. If DM hopes for parole, admitting to his guit and pleading guilty would be the first step.



Meeting someone free in the street after testifying against them in court is a chilling experience. If a witness against DM knows that he is secure in jail permanently, it frees them to give truly damaging testimony without fear.



Those testifying in favour of DM’s good character may have a change of heart.

Character witnesses would not be telling “the truth”, just their subjective viewpoint, which may change after the outcome of the first trial.



http://torontocriminaldefence.com/c...f-criminal-defence-articles-by-tushar-k-pain/



Witnesses like SB and the RBEG will attend the trial to report facts. Other witnesses, like character witnesses, will only be sharing opinions. Opinions can change.

Certainly all witnesses may be named by the media after the publication ban ends at the end of the trial. Character witnesses that support DM would certainly be seen in a negative light by the public, who are more interested in the hard evidence and justice. We can expect character witnesses to be one of the few instances where direct evidence would support DM. As such, we can expect their testimony and identities to get a fair bit of media play. The media is far more kind to DM than the public is on media message boards. If I were DM’s character witness, I would fear the public, not the media.

DM’s vast wealth will also come into play. A character witness who has gained nothing more than friendship from DM would be far more credible than one that had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from him. It is natural to ask, what has or will the witness gain financially from the defendant? Most people would consider someone who has benefited financially in a significant way from DM to be biased.

I don't really think that someone would plead guilty at a second trial just for the off chance at getting parole at some point after 25 years.

Although it seems to be an issue that a convicted person admit guilt at a parole hearing, regardless of actual guilt, IMO it shouldn't be a requirement. Anyone can admit guilt just to get the parole and are willing to say anything to get it. The only ones who wouldn't are those who are innocent and are willing to risk never getting out rather than admitting to something they did not do.

http://www.saultstar.com/2014/11/22/justice-and-the-admission-of-guilt---millroy

A character witness doesn't have much credibility anyway if they are influenced by the public. Why would a character witness ever be called at a first degree murder trial? I would hope that the Crown would have enough evidence that a character witness wouldn't be something that could sway a jury toward a not guilty verdict. So what would be the point?

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

You have to wonder about the knock-on effects of the TB trial on the LB trial though.

The TB case sounds the strongest and easiest to prove, and it is the first trial. DM has only one life to give. If DM is convicted:

- Will he challenge the LB charges at that point? What could be possibly win at that point, because freedom would not longer be a possible outcome?

- Witnesses who may have been scared to testify against him in the LB case will no longer fear him if DM is already sentenced to life.

- There would be more social pressure of witnesses not to defend DM, and more negativity from the public against those who do testify in DM's favour at the LB case, after the TB case.

- Witnesses that never could have imagined DM to be a murderer will have their beliefs challenged by DM's conviction in the TB case.

- DM could no longer put forward his honour/integrity/character as a defense, as he has in the TB case.

- DM once said, "I didn’t do it…They might as well accuse me of having been to the moon. There’s nothing real about it." Once be becomes everyone's most despised astronaut, how much credibility will people give to his words?

- Murders of strangers are uncommon, but murders of intimate partners occur with depressing regularity. It will be easier for jurors to imagine DM's guilt in the LB case after the TB one.

If he is convicted in the TB case, there would be no reason for him not to still challenge the LB charges. What could he possibly win? The chance not to be convicted of multiple murders.

The jurors need to do more than imagine guilt because they were once intimate. They need to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which would entail a lot more than whether they slept together or how many times.

 

[redheadedgal]

What is interesting about DPq is that he does not list murder defenses on his menu of services. You have to wonder exactly what kind of expertise he can offer that is relevant to the cases.

did you look at the whole site? it states "violent offences... homicide"

http://www.deanpaquettecriminallaw.com/Domestic-Violence-Violent-Offences/

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't really think that someone would plead guilty at a second trial just for the off chance at getting parole at some point after 25 years.

Although it seems to be an issue that a convicted person admit guilt at a parole hearing, regardless of actual guilt, IMO it shouldn't be a requirement. Anyone can admit guilt just to get the parole and are willing to say anything to get it. The only ones who wouldn't are those who are innocent and are willing to risk never getting out rather than admitting to something they did not do.

http://www.saultstar.com/2014/11/22/justice-and-the-admission-of-guilt---millroy

I think the prison system must be rehabilitative and you can't even begin that if people have not admitted their guilt. There have been so very few cases in history, just a handful, where an innocent person has spent time in prison and has then been delayed by legal proceedings to prove their innocence. I don't think we should change the system for tens of thousands just because of a very few.

A character witness doesn't have much credibility anyway if they are influenced by the public. Why would a character witness ever be called at a first degree murder trial? I would hope that the Crown would have enough evidence that a character witness wouldn't be something that could sway a jury toward a not guilty verdict. So what would be the point?

JMO

Well is one guilty, both, or none? If DM and MS each try to pin the blame on the other, questions of character may come into play.

I don't know why DP brought up the matter that DM was a prep school kid that had never been in trouble with the law if character does not matter.

The defense is allowed to call their own witnesses...isn't DM supposed to be the kind of guy that would never have done something like this? Why would they not call witnesses to attest to this fact?

Or do you suspect that the pile of evidence against DM is so overwhelming that the court will have no choice but to focus on that for 5 months?

 

[SnooperDuper]

did you look at the whole site? it states "violent offences... homicide"

http://www.deanpaquettecriminallaw.com/Domestic-Violence-Violent-Offences/

hmmm, and carjacking, thank you

 

[Alethea Dice]

I think the prison system must be rehabilitative and you can't even begin that if people have not admitted their guilt. There have been so very few cases in history, just a handful, where an innocent person has spent time in prison and has then been delayed by legal proceedings to prove their innocence. I don't think we should change the system for tens of thousands just because of a very few.

Well, I only have 5 fingers in my handful and there have definitely been more than that. But I don't mean to get into that discussion again because the subject was parole requirements. My point was that anyone can say whatever is required to get parole, and most will. Therefore, it makes the requirement a little redundant. You can bet that, if a person is that adamant about their innocence after spending all those years in jail, there is a reason why they don't want to admit that guilt. I'm not sure what you mean by being "delayed by legal proceedings to prove their innocence". If they're applying for parole, they've already failed to prove their innocence whether they're guilty or not.

Well is one guilty, both, or none? If DM and MS each try to pin the blame on the other, questions of character may come into play.

I don't know why DP brought up the matter that DM was a prep school kid that had never been in trouble with the law if character does not matter.

The defense is allowed to call their own witnesses...isn't DM supposed to be the kind of guy that would never have done something like this? Why would they not call witnesses to attest to this fact?

Or do you suspect that the pile of evidence against DM is so overwhelming that the court will have no choice but to focus on that for 5 months?

I suppose if they were to blame each other, a character witness could come into play. If they are blaming each other, one would think they would want separate trials. Maybe that will still happen, who knows.

DP wasn't arguing in court when he mentioned prep school and not being in previous trouble with the law. He was responding to reporter's questions about his client having been arrested and charged for TB's murder.

I didn't realize that the trial for Laura's case was expected to last for 5 months. Do you have a link for that? Or have you forgotten Laura again and mistakenly are redirecting the thread back to Tim's case?

JMO

 

[Coldpizza]

Bumping

 

[Coldpizza]

Trial thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...urder-Trial-10-23-17-Day-1-Opening-Statements