02 June 2005

"They took the position at the trial that she was not a dangerous person. She wasn't a danger then, why are they saying she is now?" Adler said.

"Unless, of course, they lied to the court in order to get a conviction, which raises all kinds of issues and questions about the fairness of his trial."

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

They're lucky they were tried in the People's Republic of Canada instead of here, where they'd both have been put down like the animals they are. Those young girls had families, who now have to watch her walk free. That is not justice.

Anonymous said...

Is there any significance to the particular quote you chose to identify this article with?

By posting this quote, are you agreeing with this defense attorney's suggestion that the trial may have been unfair to the serial rapist and murderer who filmed his (and his wife's)crimes? Simply because the prosecutors changed their theory of the case after new evidence becomes available does not by itself create unfairness. Would you suggest that, from the start of an investigation, the government cannot change the opinions regarding a crime? I doubt you hold defense attorneys to the same standard.

Anonymous said...

If I was a prosecuter, I would charge all my political enemies with crimes. When the jury acquits, I would charge them under another theory, and another, and another. This way, I would have no more political enemies.

It seems that the other commentators want to allow prosecutors to not try people as many times as they want for whatever crimes they want. This is a great idea... for North Korea. It didn't fly in my country (USA) with the framers of the constitution, becuase they though it would put too much power in the hands of big government.

Ken Lammers said...

I don't always link because I agree. I usually link in a manner which I think might cause someone to take interest and go read an article.

I read this article over very quickly at the law library while waiting for a prosecutor to get back to his office so we could discuss a case. Those lines jumped out at me so I put them up to direct others to the story.

Do I think prosecutors should not be allowed to change the theory of their case if new evidence shows up in the middle of the case? No. Rereading the article I can't tell when the tapes showed up. I don't know if it was during or before the trial. I'll see if I can find something to clear that point up.

Mister DA said...

I was in Toronto with my family the week she testified. It was front page news, you bettcha! I'd been a prosecutor about five years at that point and was just beginning to do capital felonies. I remember reading the looong summary article (the Crown's case was winding down and everyone thought the case would go to the jury shortly) in a little al fresco breakfast joint, in between trying to convince number two son that 1/2% chocolate milk was GOOD, and number one son that, yes, that round thing really was the bacon he'd asked for. When I got to the end of the article I told my wife that they'd regret making the deal they did with that woman.

I recall thinking it was remarkably similar to a case I worked on in our intermediate appellate court, where the PA cut a deal with the wife of one of the defendants (she was a named co-defendant, too) in a murder for hire plot (that actually resulted in a murder) to allow her to plead to some chicken---- low grade felony in exchange for her testimony. After wading through 1000s of pages of transcripts covering the trials of the three primary co-Ds I was convinced they'd made a deal with the mastermind of the whole thing.

Ken Lammers said...

Okay WARNING There are graphic descriptions in the post I link to herein.

As best I can tell, the prosecutors had the tape when they went to trial against the husband in the husband/wife team and still protrayed her as a victim.

Here's the whole, sick story:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/bernardo/bernmain.htm

Michael D. Pratt said...

From what I can gather, the tapes were obtained after the wife had pled guilty but before the husband's trial.

Reminds me of Kentucky case where the Commonwealth cut a deal with the co-defendant for her to testify at trial. She was a terrible witness at trial and the Jury dound the defendant (Mel Ignatow) not guilty.

While Iganotw was in jail awaiting trial on Federal charges, the new owners of his home, pulled up some carpet and discovered photogrpahs, which when developed by the police, showed the whole crime- a sexual toture murder, as it happened.

I do agree that if this had happened in most States of the USA it would have been a different result. The Wife would definitely had gotten more time as the Prosecutor would most likely have had the death Penalty lurking in the background. She most likely would have gotten something along the lines of life or upwards of 30 years.