The verdict came in the form of a 21 page decision. In it, Cunningham surgically went through all the Crown's evidence and explained why it could simply not stand up to the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Applause broke out in the courtroom as the Judge announced O'Brien was not guilty on both charges. The room was completely full and a second room had to be opened with a monitor to accommodate all the onlookers.
The evidence of Kilrea was a large focus of the decision, though Cunningham said it was not a credibility contest between him and O'Brien. At the end of the day, he said, he said "while I may not entirely believe either one of them, I an unable to conclude that I disbelieve Mr. O'Brien. Even if I were to find Mr. O'Brien's evidence did not leave me in doubt, (which I do not), the evidence of Mr. Kilrea with all its frailties, along with the other evidence I accept, leaves me with a reasonable doubt that Mr. O'Brien offered Mr. Kilrea an appointment to the National Parole Board in exchange for him withdrawing from the mayoralty race."
While MacLeod's evidence was expected to play a major role, Cunningham said her memory was just too vague. He wrote, " Ms. MacLeod's recollection of a brief; casual portion of her conversation is so imprecise that, through no fault of her own, I must assign it little weight. The various alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien give me real pause such that I cannot determine with any degree of certainty what was said and whether what was said related to something in the past or something that was ongoing. Nor can I conclude it was said in the context of someone looking after Mr. Kilrea or Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment on his own. It could just as easily have been a reference to Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment through Mr. Baird, something Mr. O'Brien has testified he encouraged Mr. Kilrea to do."
In regards to Sec. 121(d)(ii), Cunningham wrote:
"While I have some suspicions about the exact nature of conversation between these two men at 700 Sussex on July 12, 2006, I am left with a reasonable doubt that Mr. O'Brien, by pretending to have influence with the government, offered Mr. Kilrea this quid pro quo. He did not have influence with Mr. Baird. In fact, knowing of Mr. Kilrea's prior association with Mr. Baird, Mr. O'Brien encouraged Mr. Kilrea to meet with Mr. Baird directly. As I have previously stated, I believe Mr. O'Brien when he stated he was told in no uncertain terms by John Reynolds that to do so would be illegal and that he took that warning seriously."
As for Sec. 125(b, Cunningham wrote:
"It is the contention of the Crown that Mr. O'Brien solicited or negotiated with Mr. Kilrea with respect to an appointment to the National Parole Board in the expectation of a reward, advantage or benefit, namely, that Mr. Kilrea would withdraw from the race. As I have previously discussed, while at best I may have suspicions about what was discussed between these two men I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved this charge. I am satisfied they discussed , the matter. As to who initiated the topic, I conclude it was Mr. Kilrea. Undoubtedly Mr. O'Brien wanted Mr. Kilrea to withdraw from the race. I have no doubt he encouraged Mr. Kilrea to pursue an appointment. He was walking a fine line, but for the reasons aforesaid, I am unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a criminal offence"
Outside the courtroom O'Brien said the last two years have been difficult for him and his family and he is relieved the ordeal is over. On CFRA's Afternoon Edition with Rob Snow, O'Brien said he'll be back in the office Thursday morning at 9 am. He expects the next couple of days will be taken up with briefings. When asked if he still expects to run for mayor in 2010, O'Brien said he'll have to take the next 6 months to think about that decision.
And so after three months + a day, this chapter in Ottawa's history is finished.
I hope you've found this blog useful and insightful. Thank you for reading along.
AD
anna.drahovzal@chumradio.com
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Verdict Comes Tomorrow
Justice Douglas Cunningham will deliver his verdict tomorrow (Wednesday August 5) at 10 am.
CFRA will have extensive coverage throughout the day starting with Madely in the Morning with Mark Sutcliffe at 6 am.
Live coverage from the Elgin St. Courthouse will begin at 10 am.
You can also get updates on cfra.com.
CFRA will have extensive coverage throughout the day starting with Madely in the Morning with Mark Sutcliffe at 6 am.
Live coverage from the Elgin St. Courthouse will begin at 10 am.
You can also get updates on cfra.com.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
There's something about Terry- Closing Arguments Day 2
It's hard to believe, but after over two months of proceedings, all that's left in the trial is the verdict. That's expected Wednesday August 12.
Edelson wrapped up his closing statements while the Crown gave a quick and brief rebuttal.
As the title suggests, most of Edelson's attention was directed at Kilrea.
Edelson carefully went through testimony that emerged from Kilea's cross examination, and testimony given by several other witnesses, including Reynolds, MacLeod, Light, and O'Brien.
Edelson's description of Kilrea is starkly different from Hutchison's characterization. Edleson called Kilrea devious, disingenuous, profane, deceitful, mean-spirited, and hypocritical. He called him "dumb like a fox and street smart", and said "you don't have to be a genius to do what Kilrea did".
Highlights from the Defence's closing arguments:
* Kilrea has a spotty memory. There are several phone calls that are unaccounted for by Kilrea- some taking place only minutes after the ones that Kilrea can recall
* Whenever Kilrea isn't able to explain evidence that contradicts his testimony he says he "can't recall". Edelson calls this the "refuge of a liar"
* Edelson gives several examples of times Kilrea misinterprets conversations and communications and then uses them to gain media attention. He says whenever Kilrea uses the phrase "that's the impression I got" it's a "Kilrea-ism" and it means he's lying
* Kilrea created the "perfect storm" that led him to fish for a new position: he was plunging in the polls; he was out of money; and he was unhappy about returning to his job
* Light's testimony was highly partisan. He was a Kilrea campaign worker who was in the "dirty tricks department" and nowhere near a genuine witness
* MacLeod gave different variations of what she heard O'Brien say and she didn't testify to hearing about the NPB until the Crown slipped and inserted it into questioning. Edelson says she didn't know the context of the comment and that it was vague. If O'Brien was working on an appointment, where's the evidence? If O'Brien wasn't working on an appointment what was the point of telling MacLeod?
* O'Brien's statement to police does not align with Kilrea's testimony. Kilrea brings up the NPB first and O'Brien says he feels there was some "baiting" going on. O'Brien tells police to contact Reynolds and Pantazopolous- why would he direct the police to them if he was worried?
Hutchison responded to several of Edelson's points. He says it is irrelevant who brought up the NPB appointment first; what matters is what happened afterward. Edelson spent some time analyzing different versions of Kilrea's affidavit but Hutchison says its common for there to be several versions when a third party (a lawyer) is penning the statement- it's not unusual for there to be "broken telephone" between the two parties. As for MacLeod's testimony, Hutchison said he did not insert the NPB into her memory because in her police statement months earlier, she had told police about the NPB by her own volition.
Finally, Edleson had mentioned it was possible there was a compromise of integrity in the emails gathered from Tierney's hard drive (these are all the emails between O'Brien, Kilrea and Baird). He says that Tierney was given a "heads up" that emails would be seized and therefore could have tampered with the evidence. Hutchison dismisses this saying there is no evidence to prove that, and that if Edelson wanted to explore this possibility he could have called Tierney to the stand himself.
Judge Cunningham said he had a "great deal to think about" and that he wanted to be "done as quickly as I can, but I want to give it a lot of thought and consideration."
Outside the courtroom, O'Brien appeared confident. He gave reporters the thumbs up and said "we're feeling pretty good."
Throughout the trial the Crown and the Defence have had very different approaches. While the Crown has kept its case narrow and simple, the Defence has expanded its case and focused on details. The Defence tried to cast enough doubt on the Crown's case to leave reasonable doubt in the Judge's mind that would prevent him from convicting O'Brien. We'll see on August 12 which side was successful.
Edelson wrapped up his closing statements while the Crown gave a quick and brief rebuttal.
As the title suggests, most of Edelson's attention was directed at Kilrea.
Edelson carefully went through testimony that emerged from Kilea's cross examination, and testimony given by several other witnesses, including Reynolds, MacLeod, Light, and O'Brien.
Edelson's description of Kilrea is starkly different from Hutchison's characterization. Edleson called Kilrea devious, disingenuous, profane, deceitful, mean-spirited, and hypocritical. He called him "dumb like a fox and street smart", and said "you don't have to be a genius to do what Kilrea did".
Highlights from the Defence's closing arguments:
* Kilrea has a spotty memory. There are several phone calls that are unaccounted for by Kilrea- some taking place only minutes after the ones that Kilrea can recall
* Whenever Kilrea isn't able to explain evidence that contradicts his testimony he says he "can't recall". Edelson calls this the "refuge of a liar"
* Edelson gives several examples of times Kilrea misinterprets conversations and communications and then uses them to gain media attention. He says whenever Kilrea uses the phrase "that's the impression I got" it's a "Kilrea-ism" and it means he's lying
* Kilrea created the "perfect storm" that led him to fish for a new position: he was plunging in the polls; he was out of money; and he was unhappy about returning to his job
* Light's testimony was highly partisan. He was a Kilrea campaign worker who was in the "dirty tricks department" and nowhere near a genuine witness
* MacLeod gave different variations of what she heard O'Brien say and she didn't testify to hearing about the NPB until the Crown slipped and inserted it into questioning. Edelson says she didn't know the context of the comment and that it was vague. If O'Brien was working on an appointment, where's the evidence? If O'Brien wasn't working on an appointment what was the point of telling MacLeod?
* O'Brien's statement to police does not align with Kilrea's testimony. Kilrea brings up the NPB first and O'Brien says he feels there was some "baiting" going on. O'Brien tells police to contact Reynolds and Pantazopolous- why would he direct the police to them if he was worried?
Hutchison responded to several of Edelson's points. He says it is irrelevant who brought up the NPB appointment first; what matters is what happened afterward. Edelson spent some time analyzing different versions of Kilrea's affidavit but Hutchison says its common for there to be several versions when a third party (a lawyer) is penning the statement- it's not unusual for there to be "broken telephone" between the two parties. As for MacLeod's testimony, Hutchison said he did not insert the NPB into her memory because in her police statement months earlier, she had told police about the NPB by her own volition.
Finally, Edleson had mentioned it was possible there was a compromise of integrity in the emails gathered from Tierney's hard drive (these are all the emails between O'Brien, Kilrea and Baird). He says that Tierney was given a "heads up" that emails would be seized and therefore could have tampered with the evidence. Hutchison dismisses this saying there is no evidence to prove that, and that if Edelson wanted to explore this possibility he could have called Tierney to the stand himself.
Judge Cunningham said he had a "great deal to think about" and that he wanted to be "done as quickly as I can, but I want to give it a lot of thought and consideration."
Outside the courtroom, O'Brien appeared confident. He gave reporters the thumbs up and said "we're feeling pretty good."
Throughout the trial the Crown and the Defence have had very different approaches. While the Crown has kept its case narrow and simple, the Defence has expanded its case and focused on details. The Defence tried to cast enough doubt on the Crown's case to leave reasonable doubt in the Judge's mind that would prevent him from convicting O'Brien. We'll see on August 12 which side was successful.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Closing Arguments- Day 1
The Defence has decided not to call any witnesses so closing arguments have started.
Hutchison took about three hours to present his statements. Edelson began his today but we're off to an early start tomorrow to ensure that the Defence is able to finish in one day.
Highlights from the Crown's closing arguments:
* Kilrea's evidence is surrounded by a "matrix of corroborative evidence" that overcome any questions about his credibility
* O'Brien has admitted that the sole reason he met with Kilrea on July 12 was to give him a reason to quit the race
* Kilrea pegs the time of the July 12 meeting sometime between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. but can't give an exact time. Hutchison questions whether this kind of detail is that of someone making up a story. He says it's common for simple details to creep in and out of events a person is recalling honestly
* Though the dates were a week off in Kilrea's affidavit, when O'Brien was questioned about the meetings and calls during his police interview he also didn't dispute the dates even though he had seen the affidavit
* O'Brien says after July 12 the offer was off the table because he realized it was offside, but evidence from Lisa MacLeod and John Light show that weeks later the appointment was still being discussed
* O'Brien tells police at the beginning of his interview that his memory from the summer of 2006 is hazy because there was a lot going on and doesn't deny that several events happen, rather he says he doesn't remember them
* After Pantazopolous meets with Kilrea about polling numbers that show O'Brien has growth potential and Kilrea asks about the NPB: Pantazopolous testifies that O'Brien says to forget about Kilrea; they don't need him. Hutchison argues that if the NPB was dropped on July 12, O'Brien would have displayed surprise that Kilrea was still talking about it
* Under cross-examination Edelson tells Kilrea that when John Baird takes the stand he will testify that they spoke about the NPB at their meeting. Rather than yield, Kilrea stands by his evidence that it was never discussed, and later Baird corroborates that testimony
* Kilrea may not be the most sophisticated politician but he is not a Machiavellian schemer. He may be a blunderer, but he is not a criminal mastermind
* If Kilrea's testimony changed in some of the details it's because it is a true story. It is suspicious when a person is able to recount a story the exact same way each time; it indicates that it has been rehearsed
* The Crown hasn't shown that O'Brien could follow through with getting Kilrea a NPB appointment, rather it has shown O'Brien "clearly and undoubtedly" pretended to have influence in order to get Kilrea to drop out of the race; this is a quid pro quo
* From July 12 to August 7, all interactions between O'Brien and Kilrea amount to ongoing negotiations (as mentioned in the Sec. 125 charge)
The Defence introduced some of its final statements although the bulk will be presented tomorrow. So far Edelson has focused on the credibility of Kilrea, telling the court the witness has to be credible/reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt for the testimony to be completely accepted. Further, Edelson has argued:
* Kilrea's testimony shows that O'Brien never offered to get him a NPB appointment, rather Kilrea presented the option to O'Brien as something that he would be interested in. He says Kilrea was "fishing; pursuing; looking for an out." Kilrea raised the quid pro quo (aka "I'll drop out if you get me the NPB appointment")
* Kilrea had the ability to check his email and Tim Tierney's hard drive for accuracy in dates when writing his affidavit but never did. He was also asked several times by the police if he was sure he had the dates right, but he always said though he could be off, he would stick to those dates
* There are three or four different versions from Kilrea about the statement O'Brien allegedly made when he offered him the NPB (ex. "what if I can make that happen/ what if THAT can happen/ what would happen if I got you an appointment")
Hutchison took about three hours to present his statements. Edelson began his today but we're off to an early start tomorrow to ensure that the Defence is able to finish in one day.
Highlights from the Crown's closing arguments:
* Kilrea's evidence is surrounded by a "matrix of corroborative evidence" that overcome any questions about his credibility
* O'Brien has admitted that the sole reason he met with Kilrea on July 12 was to give him a reason to quit the race
* Kilrea pegs the time of the July 12 meeting sometime between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. but can't give an exact time. Hutchison questions whether this kind of detail is that of someone making up a story. He says it's common for simple details to creep in and out of events a person is recalling honestly
* Though the dates were a week off in Kilrea's affidavit, when O'Brien was questioned about the meetings and calls during his police interview he also didn't dispute the dates even though he had seen the affidavit
* O'Brien says after July 12 the offer was off the table because he realized it was offside, but evidence from Lisa MacLeod and John Light show that weeks later the appointment was still being discussed
* O'Brien tells police at the beginning of his interview that his memory from the summer of 2006 is hazy because there was a lot going on and doesn't deny that several events happen, rather he says he doesn't remember them
* After Pantazopolous meets with Kilrea about polling numbers that show O'Brien has growth potential and Kilrea asks about the NPB: Pantazopolous testifies that O'Brien says to forget about Kilrea; they don't need him. Hutchison argues that if the NPB was dropped on July 12, O'Brien would have displayed surprise that Kilrea was still talking about it
* Under cross-examination Edelson tells Kilrea that when John Baird takes the stand he will testify that they spoke about the NPB at their meeting. Rather than yield, Kilrea stands by his evidence that it was never discussed, and later Baird corroborates that testimony
* Kilrea may not be the most sophisticated politician but he is not a Machiavellian schemer. He may be a blunderer, but he is not a criminal mastermind
* If Kilrea's testimony changed in some of the details it's because it is a true story. It is suspicious when a person is able to recount a story the exact same way each time; it indicates that it has been rehearsed
* The Crown hasn't shown that O'Brien could follow through with getting Kilrea a NPB appointment, rather it has shown O'Brien "clearly and undoubtedly" pretended to have influence in order to get Kilrea to drop out of the race; this is a quid pro quo
* From July 12 to August 7, all interactions between O'Brien and Kilrea amount to ongoing negotiations (as mentioned in the Sec. 125 charge)
The Defence introduced some of its final statements although the bulk will be presented tomorrow. So far Edelson has focused on the credibility of Kilrea, telling the court the witness has to be credible/reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt for the testimony to be completely accepted. Further, Edelson has argued:
* Kilrea's testimony shows that O'Brien never offered to get him a NPB appointment, rather Kilrea presented the option to O'Brien as something that he would be interested in. He says Kilrea was "fishing; pursuing; looking for an out." Kilrea raised the quid pro quo (aka "I'll drop out if you get me the NPB appointment")
* Kilrea had the ability to check his email and Tim Tierney's hard drive for accuracy in dates when writing his affidavit but never did. He was also asked several times by the police if he was sure he had the dates right, but he always said though he could be off, he would stick to those dates
* There are three or four different versions from Kilrea about the statement O'Brien allegedly made when he offered him the NPB (ex. "what if I can make that happen/ what if THAT can happen/ what would happen if I got you an appointment")
Monday, June 29, 2009
Charges stick, back in court July 6
RULING
Judge Cunningham's 24 page decision on a motion for the directed verdict really focused on the the integrity of government. He wrote at length about why both charges do apply in this case, almost entirely agreeing with the Crown's case that was presented several weeks ago.
He ruled that while O'Brien may never have had the influence to get Kilrea a National Parole Board appointment, that was really not the point. He said it was the process of negotiating that was important, not the outcome. Essentially, it was the journey that counts, not the destination. Cunningham wrote, "efforts to trade appointments-even by those who are actually impotent to act- are corrosive to public confidence in the integrity of government and are properly caught be the section."
Cunningham also ruled that a political advantage was captured by the law, that it shouldn't be limited to a material/financial advantage. He wrote that the section "is clearly aimed at preventing influence peddling in order to protect the public's confidence in the integrity and appearance of integrity of the government."
Cunningham also noted that while some patronage-based arrangements may not be covered by the Criminal Code, others that are part of ordinary government business could be viewed by the public as a breach of integrity in government officials. He said just because there are certain realities in how government conducts itself, that doesn't necessarily mean its acceptable. He wrote "just because this activity is one of politics' dirty realities does not make it any less odious, indeed criminal."
REACTION
The O'Brien camp was visibly stunned by the verdict. Before the reading there was a lot of buzz and O'Brien himself seemed quite jovial and optimistic. As the verdict was read however, the mood in the courtroom (full of O'Brien supporters) turned much more somber.
The Defence took lots of notes. After the verdict was read one of the lawyers immediately went to speak to O'Brien and his wife; Edelson then came and they went to speak in another room for 20 minutes. Outside the courtroom, Debbie O'Brien was visibly upset.
When Edelson addressed the courtroom, he was much more subdued. His voice was much quieter and almost hard to hear; something that hasn't happened before.
Edelson told the court he would need until mid week to decide how to proceed. He said he'd notify the Crown by Thursday whether witnesses would be called, and who it would be- including if O'Brien would take the stand.
Proceedings resume Monday July 6.
Judge Cunningham's 24 page decision on a motion for the directed verdict really focused on the the integrity of government. He wrote at length about why both charges do apply in this case, almost entirely agreeing with the Crown's case that was presented several weeks ago.
He ruled that while O'Brien may never have had the influence to get Kilrea a National Parole Board appointment, that was really not the point. He said it was the process of negotiating that was important, not the outcome. Essentially, it was the journey that counts, not the destination. Cunningham wrote, "efforts to trade appointments-even by those who are actually impotent to act- are corrosive to public confidence in the integrity of government and are properly caught be the section."
Cunningham also ruled that a political advantage was captured by the law, that it shouldn't be limited to a material/financial advantage. He wrote that the section "is clearly aimed at preventing influence peddling in order to protect the public's confidence in the integrity and appearance of integrity of the government."
Cunningham also noted that while some patronage-based arrangements may not be covered by the Criminal Code, others that are part of ordinary government business could be viewed by the public as a breach of integrity in government officials. He said just because there are certain realities in how government conducts itself, that doesn't necessarily mean its acceptable. He wrote "just because this activity is one of politics' dirty realities does not make it any less odious, indeed criminal."
REACTION
The O'Brien camp was visibly stunned by the verdict. Before the reading there was a lot of buzz and O'Brien himself seemed quite jovial and optimistic. As the verdict was read however, the mood in the courtroom (full of O'Brien supporters) turned much more somber.
The Defence took lots of notes. After the verdict was read one of the lawyers immediately went to speak to O'Brien and his wife; Edelson then came and they went to speak in another room for 20 minutes. Outside the courtroom, Debbie O'Brien was visibly upset.
When Edelson addressed the courtroom, he was much more subdued. His voice was much quieter and almost hard to hear; something that hasn't happened before.
Edelson told the court he would need until mid week to decide how to proceed. He said he'd notify the Crown by Thursday whether witnesses would be called, and who it would be- including if O'Brien would take the stand.
Proceedings resume Monday July 6.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Decision Expected this Week
Judge Cunningham will be returning with a decision on the directed verdict a bit later on Friday than expected. The decision is now scheduled for 2:30 on June 26.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
What's in a benefit?
It was the Crown's turn today to give its take on the charges that O'Brien faces. Like yesterday, previous case law was evoked and Hutchison went through various legal technicalities and interpretations that apply to both 121 and 125, though his major focus was on 121.
He had two main arguments:
1) On the issue of benefit... he said it would be ridiculous for the definition of a "benefit" to be limited to financial gain. He drew on a previous case and argued that it opens the door to all sorts of interpretations that go beyond economics. He said O'Brien sought a "direct, explicit, and concrete benefit" in Kilrea's withdrawal. He said it doesn't have to be literally tangible (like a stack of cash), rather it has to be valuable to the influencer. He argued that the influencer sets the price in terms that are valuable to him/her. So, in this case, having Kilrea out of the race was what was valuable to O'Brien, and he offered something to Kilrea so that he could gain the benefit.
2) On the issue of influence... he argued O'Brien sought out Kilrea and used his influence with senior Tory officials to get him an appointment (he reviewed a few things from Kilrea's testimony including the "what if I could make that happen" quote from O'Brien). He argued that even if O'Brien had no influence it was irrelevant to the harm that Parliament was trying to address with the law. Essentially, he argued that even impossible attempts are criminal, ie. the fact that an attempt is physically impossible doesn't make it any less of an attempt.
And just in case you were worried that Hutchison lost some of his dry humour and sarcasm while in the spotlight...
* Justice Cunningham interrupted several times to clarify and pose hypothetical questions. When he suggested that a person MUST have real authority otherwise crazy things could happen, Hutchison argued if three frat boys sat around drinking and promising each other great government jobs, the law wouldn't capture it because it wasn't serious. When the Judge suggests perhaps it was serious, Hutchison quips, "you went to a better frat than I."
* At one point Hutchison started a sentence with "Maybe I'm just a naive kid from Scarborough but..."
* In a different argument, Hutchison conjured up an example with "If Mr. Paciocco were to buy me a coffee...(pauses)... well I guess that's unlikely...."
Paciocco ended the day with a few arguments in response to Hutchison and then declares: "Stop the charges... there's been no crime here."
The Judge will return with a decision at 9:30 on June 26. If he rules for the directed verdict, the charges will be dropped. If he rules against it, the Defence will have the opportunity to call witnesses and continue with its case. It may also choose not to call witnesses and move directly to closing arguments.
He had two main arguments:
1) On the issue of benefit... he said it would be ridiculous for the definition of a "benefit" to be limited to financial gain. He drew on a previous case and argued that it opens the door to all sorts of interpretations that go beyond economics. He said O'Brien sought a "direct, explicit, and concrete benefit" in Kilrea's withdrawal. He said it doesn't have to be literally tangible (like a stack of cash), rather it has to be valuable to the influencer. He argued that the influencer sets the price in terms that are valuable to him/her. So, in this case, having Kilrea out of the race was what was valuable to O'Brien, and he offered something to Kilrea so that he could gain the benefit.
2) On the issue of influence... he argued O'Brien sought out Kilrea and used his influence with senior Tory officials to get him an appointment (he reviewed a few things from Kilrea's testimony including the "what if I could make that happen" quote from O'Brien). He argued that even if O'Brien had no influence it was irrelevant to the harm that Parliament was trying to address with the law. Essentially, he argued that even impossible attempts are criminal, ie. the fact that an attempt is physically impossible doesn't make it any less of an attempt.
And just in case you were worried that Hutchison lost some of his dry humour and sarcasm while in the spotlight...
* Justice Cunningham interrupted several times to clarify and pose hypothetical questions. When he suggested that a person MUST have real authority otherwise crazy things could happen, Hutchison argued if three frat boys sat around drinking and promising each other great government jobs, the law wouldn't capture it because it wasn't serious. When the Judge suggests perhaps it was serious, Hutchison quips, "you went to a better frat than I."
* At one point Hutchison started a sentence with "Maybe I'm just a naive kid from Scarborough but..."
* In a different argument, Hutchison conjured up an example with "If Mr. Paciocco were to buy me a coffee...(pauses)... well I guess that's unlikely...."
Paciocco ended the day with a few arguments in response to Hutchison and then declares: "Stop the charges... there's been no crime here."
The Judge will return with a decision at 9:30 on June 26. If he rules for the directed verdict, the charges will be dropped. If he rules against it, the Defence will have the opportunity to call witnesses and continue with its case. It may also choose not to call witnesses and move directly to closing arguments.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Criminal or ethical?
After almost a week, proceedings picked up in courtroom 36.
The first item of business was the question of whether an expert would be allowed to give evidence on the political and social context to the charges O'Brien faces. Paciocco agreed that calling an expert would complicate things but insisted David Mitchell would be crucial in providing the Judge with all the information he would need to make a decision. The Judge didn't think so, saying he didn't see the point of calling an expert who would come in and give examples from books he has already read himself.
The rest of the day was dedicated to Paciocco's arguments for a directed verdict. Though he gave ample examples, the arguments came down to those that he introduced last week:
* Section 125(b): O'Brien had no influence to get Kilrea an appointment. Paciocco argued that in Reynold's testimony, he said the most he could do was pass on a resume of somebody to the appropriate minister, but that he had no influence in doing more than that. In this case, Reynolds said he never received Kilrea's resume and he never did anything to further an alleged appointment... thus no one with influence did anything to exert it.
* Section 121(1)(d)(ii): Any benefit or advantage must be financial/material/tangible/economic. Paciocco argued political advantage is not caught in this charge. "There has not been a single prosecution for political advantage", Paciocco said. "What is alleged is not criminal... this is not the stuff of crimes, it's the stuff of politics." This was a major focus of the argument; essentially a question of whether it is the place of the court to regulate this type of behaviour. "It's not about whether it's acceptable, it's about whether it's criminal", Paciocco said.
The Crown will present its arguments tomorrow and the Defence will have a chance to reply. After that it will be up to the Judge to decide if he grants the directed verdict.
This is the last week that has been scheduled. After Thursday, there will be a three week break with proceedings picking up the week of July 6 if need be. What happens next will largely depend on how much time the Judge will take to make a decision on this motion. If it is allowed, the case will be over and O'Brien will be acquitted. If it is not allowed, the Defence can still make a motion for a traditional directed verdict on the basis that the Crown has not met its burden of proof (that there's a lack of evidence).
We're back at it tomorrow morning.
The first item of business was the question of whether an expert would be allowed to give evidence on the political and social context to the charges O'Brien faces. Paciocco agreed that calling an expert would complicate things but insisted David Mitchell would be crucial in providing the Judge with all the information he would need to make a decision. The Judge didn't think so, saying he didn't see the point of calling an expert who would come in and give examples from books he has already read himself.
The rest of the day was dedicated to Paciocco's arguments for a directed verdict. Though he gave ample examples, the arguments came down to those that he introduced last week:
* Section 125(b): O'Brien had no influence to get Kilrea an appointment. Paciocco argued that in Reynold's testimony, he said the most he could do was pass on a resume of somebody to the appropriate minister, but that he had no influence in doing more than that. In this case, Reynolds said he never received Kilrea's resume and he never did anything to further an alleged appointment... thus no one with influence did anything to exert it.
* Section 121(1)(d)(ii): Any benefit or advantage must be financial/material/tangible/economic. Paciocco argued political advantage is not caught in this charge. "There has not been a single prosecution for political advantage", Paciocco said. "What is alleged is not criminal... this is not the stuff of crimes, it's the stuff of politics." This was a major focus of the argument; essentially a question of whether it is the place of the court to regulate this type of behaviour. "It's not about whether it's acceptable, it's about whether it's criminal", Paciocco said.
The Crown will present its arguments tomorrow and the Defence will have a chance to reply. After that it will be up to the Judge to decide if he grants the directed verdict.
This is the last week that has been scheduled. After Thursday, there will be a three week break with proceedings picking up the week of July 6 if need be. What happens next will largely depend on how much time the Judge will take to make a decision on this motion. If it is allowed, the case will be over and O'Brien will be acquitted. If it is not allowed, the Defence can still make a motion for a traditional directed verdict on the basis that the Crown has not met its burden of proof (that there's a lack of evidence).
We're back at it tomorrow morning.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Square pegs in round holes
The day worked its way into a crescendo. To make things easier to follow, I've recounted them chronologically.
The last two witnesses took the stand... first it was Dimitri Pantazopoulos then John Reynolds.
Highlights from Pantazopoulos:
* He was asked by O'Brien to do some polling for him around July 10/July 11. The polls were conducted between July 13-15. They essentially showed that Kilrea was receiving a negative vote; people were going to vote for him for lack of an alternative. After a discussion with O'Brien, they decided to show Kilrea the results. When pressed by the Crown, Pantazopoulos couldn't remember exactly what was discussed during that conversation.
* He met with Kilrea on July 18 in the main dining room of the Sheraton at 12:00pm. He sat in the same chair at the same table that he had seen Jean Chretien at a week earlier. This statement prompted Hutchison to say "you must have felt special."
* He said he didn't come to the meeting with a briefcase full of polling data; that he doesn't even own a briefcase. This was in response to Kilrea's previous testimony. Hutchison didn't ask about this detail- Pantazopoulos volunteered it.
* Pantazopoulos says Kilrea told him he was $30,000 in debt, and that he indicated his real calling wasn't as mayor, but rather he mused about his desire for a position on the NPB.
* He told Kilrea any federal appointment as a "quid pro quo" would be illegal
* He says some of Kilrea's language and tone was odd... that sometimes it felt really official and not conversational
* He says after the meeting, when he spoke to O'Brien, O'Brien told him "we don't need him anyway and we probably shouldn't talk to him again."
* He says he never said the appointment was "too hot to handle" as Kilrea has testified. "Those words are not in my lexicon", he said.
* He says he told Kilrea to go speak to people he trusted about his decision to drop out of the race. He mentioned Baird's name because Kilrea had said earlier in the meeting that he had Baird's support.
* He said he was offended by Kilrea's allegations. He said he would've never risked his reputation on a "bullshit appointment for Terry Kilrea". Asked to clarify a statement he made to police, Pantazopoulos says, "I had no role in this and this was damaging to my reputation."
* When asked about Kilrea's affidavit, Pantazopoulos says, "either he misconstrued what I said or he deliberately twisted my words to something they were not."
John Reynolds took the stand for only a short time after. He testified that he didn't recall discussing a NPB appointment with O'Brien, that no one ever asked him about an appointment for Kilrea, that Kilrea's resume had never been sent to him, and that he never spoke to Baird about an appointment for anyone.
And then the legal fireworks.
It was expected the Defence would ask for a directed verdict- essentially asking the Judge to dismiss the charges due to a lack of evidence. And while this motion was made, it had a "twist". The Defence- led in this matter by David Paciocco- said it would be arguing that the charges against O'Brien should never have been made. He said even if the Crown was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it would be legally impossible to convict O'Brien. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the terms "advantage" or "benefit" that are alluded to in both Section 121 and 125 mean an economical gain, not a political one as in O'Brien's case. He suggested if negotiating with someone was a criminal offence, many elected officials would be criminals because it happens all the time. As an example, he pointed to MPs who've crossed the floor for a cabinet positions. He argued "you can't argue one thing for O'Brien, and another for a member of Parliament."
Paciocco also argued the charges don't fit the situation; that it would be like putting square pegs into round holes.
The Defence plans to call an expert witness- believed to be David Mitchell, head of the Public Policy Forum. He is expected to give social and political context to these two sections of law.
Hutchison said he was concerned about this motion. He said he doesn't like the defence calling evidence on a directed verdict. When the Judge said he had never heard of it happening before, Hutchison suggested it was because it wasn't allowed. He also suggested the possibility of calling his own witness, mentioning John Baird's name.
Hutchison told the court he was glad to see the defence's submissions only date back to the beginning of European settlements in North America. He quipped he'd bring his tractor-trailer to take all the material home... in fact, the Defence has said the readings reach about a foot in height.
Proceedings pick up on Monday when arguments over the directed verdict will begin.
The last two witnesses took the stand... first it was Dimitri Pantazopoulos then John Reynolds.
Highlights from Pantazopoulos:
* He was asked by O'Brien to do some polling for him around July 10/July 11. The polls were conducted between July 13-15. They essentially showed that Kilrea was receiving a negative vote; people were going to vote for him for lack of an alternative. After a discussion with O'Brien, they decided to show Kilrea the results. When pressed by the Crown, Pantazopoulos couldn't remember exactly what was discussed during that conversation.
* He met with Kilrea on July 18 in the main dining room of the Sheraton at 12:00pm. He sat in the same chair at the same table that he had seen Jean Chretien at a week earlier. This statement prompted Hutchison to say "you must have felt special."
* He said he didn't come to the meeting with a briefcase full of polling data; that he doesn't even own a briefcase. This was in response to Kilrea's previous testimony. Hutchison didn't ask about this detail- Pantazopoulos volunteered it.
* Pantazopoulos says Kilrea told him he was $30,000 in debt, and that he indicated his real calling wasn't as mayor, but rather he mused about his desire for a position on the NPB.
* He told Kilrea any federal appointment as a "quid pro quo" would be illegal
* He says some of Kilrea's language and tone was odd... that sometimes it felt really official and not conversational
* He says after the meeting, when he spoke to O'Brien, O'Brien told him "we don't need him anyway and we probably shouldn't talk to him again."
* He says he never said the appointment was "too hot to handle" as Kilrea has testified. "Those words are not in my lexicon", he said.
* He says he told Kilrea to go speak to people he trusted about his decision to drop out of the race. He mentioned Baird's name because Kilrea had said earlier in the meeting that he had Baird's support.
* He said he was offended by Kilrea's allegations. He said he would've never risked his reputation on a "bullshit appointment for Terry Kilrea". Asked to clarify a statement he made to police, Pantazopoulos says, "I had no role in this and this was damaging to my reputation."
* When asked about Kilrea's affidavit, Pantazopoulos says, "either he misconstrued what I said or he deliberately twisted my words to something they were not."
John Reynolds took the stand for only a short time after. He testified that he didn't recall discussing a NPB appointment with O'Brien, that no one ever asked him about an appointment for Kilrea, that Kilrea's resume had never been sent to him, and that he never spoke to Baird about an appointment for anyone.
And then the legal fireworks.
It was expected the Defence would ask for a directed verdict- essentially asking the Judge to dismiss the charges due to a lack of evidence. And while this motion was made, it had a "twist". The Defence- led in this matter by David Paciocco- said it would be arguing that the charges against O'Brien should never have been made. He said even if the Crown was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it would be legally impossible to convict O'Brien. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the terms "advantage" or "benefit" that are alluded to in both Section 121 and 125 mean an economical gain, not a political one as in O'Brien's case. He suggested if negotiating with someone was a criminal offence, many elected officials would be criminals because it happens all the time. As an example, he pointed to MPs who've crossed the floor for a cabinet positions. He argued "you can't argue one thing for O'Brien, and another for a member of Parliament."
Paciocco also argued the charges don't fit the situation; that it would be like putting square pegs into round holes.
The Defence plans to call an expert witness- believed to be David Mitchell, head of the Public Policy Forum. He is expected to give social and political context to these two sections of law.
Hutchison said he was concerned about this motion. He said he doesn't like the defence calling evidence on a directed verdict. When the Judge said he had never heard of it happening before, Hutchison suggested it was because it wasn't allowed. He also suggested the possibility of calling his own witness, mentioning John Baird's name.
Hutchison told the court he was glad to see the defence's submissions only date back to the beginning of European settlements in North America. He quipped he'd bring his tractor-trailer to take all the material home... in fact, the Defence has said the readings reach about a foot in height.
Proceedings pick up on Monday when arguments over the directed verdict will begin.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Short and sweet... picking up next week
Penner took the stand for only a short time. The Crown (questioning happened under Brennagh Smith for the first time instead of Hutchison) took Penner through the elaborate process to qualify and get appointed to the NPB. Penner told the court that in July 2006 there was 1 vacancy on the 45-seat NPB, but it wasn't filled until October of the next year. He testified he was never contacted in any way about an appointment for Kilrea to the NPB. He said that though he's been forwarded CV's from John Reynolds in the past, he never received one about Kilrea. Under cross examination, Penner said it would be impossible for someone to make a phone call and within a few hours be appointed to the Board.
Reynolds takes the stand on Tuesday. On Monday, Pantazopolous is expected to testify on Monday. The Crown said that next week "it's conceivable" it will be finished with witnesses.
The Crown has decided it will not re-examine any witnesses from the Trilogy.
Funny moment of the day: Bennett was asked about when his involvement in politics began and he started his answer with "when I was 8 years old...." The Crown interrupted, clarifying that perhaps it wasn't necessary to go THAT far back... the Judge quipped "it's going to be a long day."
We're done for the week. Tomorrow's proceedings were put on hold so O'Brien could attend his son's graduation from McGill.
AND... seems next week will be short as well. The Judge has committments in Winnipeg on Thursday, and when Hutchison joked that we all join him there, Cunningham said we REALLY wouldn't want to do that.
Reynolds takes the stand on Tuesday. On Monday, Pantazopolous is expected to testify on Monday. The Crown said that next week "it's conceivable" it will be finished with witnesses.
The Crown has decided it will not re-examine any witnesses from the Trilogy.
Funny moment of the day: Bennett was asked about when his involvement in politics began and he started his answer with "when I was 8 years old...." The Crown interrupted, clarifying that perhaps it wasn't necessary to go THAT far back... the Judge quipped "it's going to be a long day."
We're done for the week. Tomorrow's proceedings were put on hold so O'Brien could attend his son's graduation from McGill.
AND... seems next week will be short as well. The Judge has committments in Winnipeg on Thursday, and when Hutchison joked that we all join him there, Cunningham said we REALLY wouldn't want to do that.
Quick and dirty
We're on a lunch break, so here's the quick and dirty of a very busy morning.
* The Judge has deemed the testimony of the "trilogy" admissible. Judge Cunningham ruled their testimony wasn't hearsay and that the content of their testimonies will be for him to determine. He said their evidence has relevance and some probative value,though he agreed with the Defence that none of the 3 men ever discussed the NPB issue with O'Brien.
* MacLeod was on the stand for about an hour. She testified that she met with O'Brien on July 31 2006 at her old constituency office and that David Gibbons was present. She told the court their interaction was casual and that O'Brien said "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment. It wasn't clear who that was." She said she didn't probe this statement when it was made said to her. Asked again about her recollection, she told the court O'Brien said, "we're talking to Terry about an appointment... I believe it was the National Parole Board. It came up casually, maybe once or twice through the conversation."
* Bennett's time of the stand lasted about half an hour. He told the court the call he made to Light was made from his kitchen and that O'Brien wasn't present. He testified that when Light said he was committed to Kilrea, Bennett checked with Strong (who was in the kitchen) and then said to Light "Kilrea would be gone." He later explained Kilrea was "done" because he had a lack of momentum and money. He also told the court he was having memory issues and that while it was possible that that the NPB was mentioned, he couldn't remember whether that was first hand information or whether he had read that in the newspaper.
David Penner is up next. The Crown is deciding over lunch whether to recall any of the trilogy testimonies... Edelson has said he doesn't intend to cross examine any of them further.
* The Judge has deemed the testimony of the "trilogy" admissible. Judge Cunningham ruled their testimony wasn't hearsay and that the content of their testimonies will be for him to determine. He said their evidence has relevance and some probative value,though he agreed with the Defence that none of the 3 men ever discussed the NPB issue with O'Brien.
* MacLeod was on the stand for about an hour. She testified that she met with O'Brien on July 31 2006 at her old constituency office and that David Gibbons was present. She told the court their interaction was casual and that O'Brien said "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment. It wasn't clear who that was." She said she didn't probe this statement when it was made said to her. Asked again about her recollection, she told the court O'Brien said, "we're talking to Terry about an appointment... I believe it was the National Parole Board. It came up casually, maybe once or twice through the conversation."
* Bennett's time of the stand lasted about half an hour. He told the court the call he made to Light was made from his kitchen and that O'Brien wasn't present. He testified that when Light said he was committed to Kilrea, Bennett checked with Strong (who was in the kitchen) and then said to Light "Kilrea would be gone." He later explained Kilrea was "done" because he had a lack of momentum and money. He also told the court he was having memory issues and that while it was possible that that the NPB was mentioned, he couldn't remember whether that was first hand information or whether he had read that in the newspaper.
David Penner is up next. The Crown is deciding over lunch whether to recall any of the trilogy testimonies... Edelson has said he doesn't intend to cross examine any of them further.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The fellows of the trilogy
I realize it sounds like an adventure-fantasy movie... but it's the best I can do tonight.
Proceedings wrapped up pretty early today. After dealing with the hearsay issue, we heard testimony from John Light and Greg Strong, although it only lasted about an hour. Thom Bennett is unavailable until tomorrow, so the "trilogy" as they've been referred to, won't be complete until then.
The Crown seemed to bolster and then deflate its case with the two witnesses.
Light testimony in a nutshell:
*He got a call from Bennett in August 2006. Bennett said he was calling from his office and that Strong and O'Brien were present. He asked him to come over to the O'Brien campaign, but Light said he was committed to the Kilrea campaign. Bennett then covered the phone for a few seconds (30 to be exact), came back and said, "don't worry about Terry. He’s going to be dropping out of the race soon, he’s been offered something.” Later, he got a call from Strong and when he again expressed his commitment to Kilrea, Strong said,"between you and me, Terry won’t be in the race much longer, he's being offered something through the party. Dimitri Pantazopoulos is working on an offer that I think Terry is going to accept.” He clarified it was a federal appointment of some sort.
Strong testimony in a nutshell:
*Bennett called Light from Bennett's kitchen and O'Brien was not present. He says no discussions were ever held within the campaign about an offer to Kilrea other than talk about his website. He says the only time the NPB was brought up was in casual conversations with others about what Kilrea would do after he withdrew from the race. He testifies those conversations never occurred with O'Brien or Bennett. He says at the time Kilrea "was shopping himself around" and everyone had an opinion about what he would do.
The examination and cross-examination was quite brief... the whole affair took only an hour for both witnesses.
It's critical for the Crown's case that this evidence be admissible. If the testimony is permitted, both Hutchison and Edelson will be able to re-examine the witnesses.
Lisa MacLeod and David Penner take the stand tomorrow after Bennett.
Funny moment of the day: When Hutchison referred to an exhibit that was labeled YYY he said it sounded more like a love song than an exhibit.
Proceedings wrapped up pretty early today. After dealing with the hearsay issue, we heard testimony from John Light and Greg Strong, although it only lasted about an hour. Thom Bennett is unavailable until tomorrow, so the "trilogy" as they've been referred to, won't be complete until then.
The Crown seemed to bolster and then deflate its case with the two witnesses.
Light testimony in a nutshell:
*He got a call from Bennett in August 2006. Bennett said he was calling from his office and that Strong and O'Brien were present. He asked him to come over to the O'Brien campaign, but Light said he was committed to the Kilrea campaign. Bennett then covered the phone for a few seconds (30 to be exact), came back and said, "don't worry about Terry. He’s going to be dropping out of the race soon, he’s been offered something.” Later, he got a call from Strong and when he again expressed his commitment to Kilrea, Strong said,"between you and me, Terry won’t be in the race much longer, he's being offered something through the party. Dimitri Pantazopoulos is working on an offer that I think Terry is going to accept.” He clarified it was a federal appointment of some sort.
Strong testimony in a nutshell:
*Bennett called Light from Bennett's kitchen and O'Brien was not present. He says no discussions were ever held within the campaign about an offer to Kilrea other than talk about his website. He says the only time the NPB was brought up was in casual conversations with others about what Kilrea would do after he withdrew from the race. He testifies those conversations never occurred with O'Brien or Bennett. He says at the time Kilrea "was shopping himself around" and everyone had an opinion about what he would do.
The examination and cross-examination was quite brief... the whole affair took only an hour for both witnesses.
It's critical for the Crown's case that this evidence be admissible. If the testimony is permitted, both Hutchison and Edelson will be able to re-examine the witnesses.
Lisa MacLeod and David Penner take the stand tomorrow after Bennett.
Funny moment of the day: When Hutchison referred to an exhibit that was labeled YYY he said it sounded more like a love song than an exhibit.
You say, I say, Hearsay
Sorry for the delay.
It's been a very interesting morning in courtroom 36. On heels of evidence expected from John Light, the Crown and Defence argued over the admissibility of his evidence, along with evidence to come from Greg Strong and Thom Bennett. The Crown had argued that their evidence wouldn't be hearsay. Hutchison said he expected that their testimony would likely claim the following:
1) Light: that he was approached by Bennett to be part of O'Brien's campaign and that they were "working on something for Terry [Kilrea]", and in a subsequent phone call that "something was in the works" for getting Kilrea an appointment on the Hill, and that he'd be out of the election.
2) Strong: that there were ongoing discussions about what could be done to get Kilrea out of the race- that there was talk of buying his website, or talk of the NPB
3) Bennett: similar testimony to Strong.
Hutchison said if Strong's testimony wouldn't be admissible, neither would Bennett's.
He acknowledged that most of the above conversations weren't directly linked to O'Brien, but because they were taking place around August 6 (two weeks after the alleged conversation occurred between Kilrea and O'Brien on July 12) they showed that the offer hadn't been dropped on July 12 as O'Brien had told police.
(*NOTE* Yesterday in a video taped interview between the OPP's lead investigator Brian Mason and O'Brien, O'Brien told police he told Kilrea on July 12- after their first meeting- that he could do nothing for Kilrea and that if he wanted a NPB appointment, he'd have to submit an application).
Hutchison went on to argue that the testimony would demonstrate that the statements were made; would show the timing of them; and the subject matter would lead to the overall truthfulness in the end. Further, it would bolster Kilrea's credibility in his testimony that when he and O'Brien met during the second meeting, the NPB appointment was again discussed... again, that it hadn't been taken off the table back on July 12.
The Defence argued that the testimony would indeed by hearsay. Edelson argued that if the witnesses heard the information from any source except for O'Brien himself than it would be hearsay and irrelevant. He drew on several past cases to make his point. He argued that Hutchison had to prove the origin on the statements, that he couldn't just use the evidence for the purpose of statements.
The Judge ruled that the evidence will be presented within a voir dire. Essentially, the witnesses will give their testimony and at the end the Judge will decide if it's admissible. If it is, they will give their testimony again but within the actual trial. Edelson has said he'll focus his line of testimony on whether their evidence is directly linked to O'Brien.
Light is expected to tesify this afternoon, followed by Strong and then Bennett.
It's been a very interesting morning in courtroom 36. On heels of evidence expected from John Light, the Crown and Defence argued over the admissibility of his evidence, along with evidence to come from Greg Strong and Thom Bennett. The Crown had argued that their evidence wouldn't be hearsay. Hutchison said he expected that their testimony would likely claim the following:
1) Light: that he was approached by Bennett to be part of O'Brien's campaign and that they were "working on something for Terry [Kilrea]", and in a subsequent phone call that "something was in the works" for getting Kilrea an appointment on the Hill, and that he'd be out of the election.
2) Strong: that there were ongoing discussions about what could be done to get Kilrea out of the race- that there was talk of buying his website, or talk of the NPB
3) Bennett: similar testimony to Strong.
Hutchison said if Strong's testimony wouldn't be admissible, neither would Bennett's.
He acknowledged that most of the above conversations weren't directly linked to O'Brien, but because they were taking place around August 6 (two weeks after the alleged conversation occurred between Kilrea and O'Brien on July 12) they showed that the offer hadn't been dropped on July 12 as O'Brien had told police.
(*NOTE* Yesterday in a video taped interview between the OPP's lead investigator Brian Mason and O'Brien, O'Brien told police he told Kilrea on July 12- after their first meeting- that he could do nothing for Kilrea and that if he wanted a NPB appointment, he'd have to submit an application).
Hutchison went on to argue that the testimony would demonstrate that the statements were made; would show the timing of them; and the subject matter would lead to the overall truthfulness in the end. Further, it would bolster Kilrea's credibility in his testimony that when he and O'Brien met during the second meeting, the NPB appointment was again discussed... again, that it hadn't been taken off the table back on July 12.
The Defence argued that the testimony would indeed by hearsay. Edelson argued that if the witnesses heard the information from any source except for O'Brien himself than it would be hearsay and irrelevant. He drew on several past cases to make his point. He argued that Hutchison had to prove the origin on the statements, that he couldn't just use the evidence for the purpose of statements.
The Judge ruled that the evidence will be presented within a voir dire. Essentially, the witnesses will give their testimony and at the end the Judge will decide if it's admissible. If it is, they will give their testimony again but within the actual trial. Edelson has said he'll focus his line of testimony on whether their evidence is directly linked to O'Brien.
Light is expected to tesify this afternoon, followed by Strong and then Bennett.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
It's a wrap
Baird took the stand for 2 hours today and after 7 days on the witness stand, Kilrea has stepped down.
For all the build up, Baird's testimony was anti-climatic; nothing new was revealed, and the Crown and Defence didn't push too hard. Despite some speculation that a meeting at Hy's Steakhouse would be on the agenda, it wasn't mentioned in any way.
As a funny aside, with all the national media present today, the courtroom was full to the brim. After Baird left the courtroom and the media followed - virtually emptying the courtroom - Hutchison joked, "I'll try not to take it personally", and the Judge followed with, "Was it something I said?"
Kilrea's testimony finished with a few comments by Edelson. He told Kilrea:
1) O'Brien told Kilrea that he [O'Brien] could do nothing for the NPB appointment, and told him he should pursue it with Baird because Kilrea knew him better than O'Brien did.
2) O'Brien said Kilrea would have a better shot at getting on city council than becoming a mayor.
3) O'Brien never offered to pay Kilrea's expenses and reimburse him.
Edelson tells Kilrea he's told a story that bears little resemblance to the real events. He says Kilrea was the one who brought up the NPB issue before O'Brien.
Edelson cites the many times Kilrea consulted his lawyer for smaller issues throughout his political career, yet when this alleged offer came his way, he didn't contact his lawyer.
Edelson tells Kilrea he had a "nuclear bomb" that he could've fired at O'Brien during the mayoral race, but he chose not to use it as a political weapon.
Kilrea testifies (under Crown examination) that the reason he never went public with the alleged offer before the election was because he didn't know it was illegal, and that he felt it would torpedo O'Brien's campaign.
In regards to the different versions of his affidavit, Kilrea says he never referenced the emails at his disposal; that he expressed concern to the polygraph examiner that he could be a week off on the dates; and that he never intended to mislead anyone with the affidavit.
When asked why he entered politics, Kilrea said he felt that things could be a little different if he entered - a change from Chiarelli politics.
Outside the courtroom, Kilrea said he was glad to have his life back. He said he wouldn't be following the trial and that he just wanted to get back to his job and enjoy a nice dinner tonight. As for returning to politics, Kilrea said he wouldn't close any door... he said he would consider returning for a run at city council.
Court resumes Monday. The next witness hasn't been confirmed, although it is expected to be the lead investigator in the case.
For all the build up, Baird's testimony was anti-climatic; nothing new was revealed, and the Crown and Defence didn't push too hard. Despite some speculation that a meeting at Hy's Steakhouse would be on the agenda, it wasn't mentioned in any way.
As a funny aside, with all the national media present today, the courtroom was full to the brim. After Baird left the courtroom and the media followed - virtually emptying the courtroom - Hutchison joked, "I'll try not to take it personally", and the Judge followed with, "Was it something I said?"
Kilrea's testimony finished with a few comments by Edelson. He told Kilrea:
1) O'Brien told Kilrea that he [O'Brien] could do nothing for the NPB appointment, and told him he should pursue it with Baird because Kilrea knew him better than O'Brien did.
2) O'Brien said Kilrea would have a better shot at getting on city council than becoming a mayor.
3) O'Brien never offered to pay Kilrea's expenses and reimburse him.
Edelson tells Kilrea he's told a story that bears little resemblance to the real events. He says Kilrea was the one who brought up the NPB issue before O'Brien.
Edelson cites the many times Kilrea consulted his lawyer for smaller issues throughout his political career, yet when this alleged offer came his way, he didn't contact his lawyer.
Edelson tells Kilrea he had a "nuclear bomb" that he could've fired at O'Brien during the mayoral race, but he chose not to use it as a political weapon.
Kilrea testifies (under Crown examination) that the reason he never went public with the alleged offer before the election was because he didn't know it was illegal, and that he felt it would torpedo O'Brien's campaign.
In regards to the different versions of his affidavit, Kilrea says he never referenced the emails at his disposal; that he expressed concern to the polygraph examiner that he could be a week off on the dates; and that he never intended to mislead anyone with the affidavit.
When asked why he entered politics, Kilrea said he felt that things could be a little different if he entered - a change from Chiarelli politics.
Outside the courtroom, Kilrea said he was glad to have his life back. He said he wouldn't be following the trial and that he just wanted to get back to his job and enjoy a nice dinner tonight. As for returning to politics, Kilrea said he wouldn't close any door... he said he would consider returning for a run at city council.
Court resumes Monday. The next witness hasn't been confirmed, although it is expected to be the lead investigator in the case.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Baird on the hot seat as Kilrea steps off
John Baird takes the stand at 10 am tomorrow while Kilrea steps aside temporarily to allow him to testify. The Crown has said it expects he'll only be there for an hour, and when Baird finishes, Kilrea will be up again.
Points of interest outside of the main story:
* For the first time, O'Brien's wife Colleen wasn't present for the first half of the day.
* Lots of time was spent on the term "rat-f***d." Edelson said in a police statement Kilrea said O'Brien told him "I will rat-f*** you", but in court Kilrea said "We could've rat-f***d you". Kilrea testified he didn't know who "we" referred to.
* Edelson asks the Judge if he has a copy of transcripts from Kilrea's previous testimony. Judge Cunningham replies "No, but I have very good notes."
* In reference to the alleged NPB appointment, Edelson points to changes in the affidavit drafts... an earlier version reads "what if that can happen"; the final version reads "what if I can make that happen."
* Edelson refers to media coverage and mentions the word "bribe." Kilrea tells the court he wants to clarify, "I always have said it's not a bribe, but an offer."
* Edelson tells the court that in Kilrea's March 4 2009 interview with the Crown, he says he was 5th in the queue for the NPB appointment. Edelson says this detail has never been brought up before.
* Kilrea has only testified to one phone call after the alleged meeting between himself and O'Brien. Edelson shows phone records that indicate there were four calls on that day - two were initiated by Kilrea.
* Edelson shows the court phone records that indicate that during Kilrea's meeting with Pantazopolous, he makes a 9 minute phone call to Tierney.
* Kilrea has testified that Pantazopolous said the NPB appointment was "too hot to handle" and he would have to wait until after the election for anything to be done. Edelson suggests that when Pantazopolous takes the stand he will strongly deny this conversation happened. Edelson goes on to suggest that only a fool would take an offer that would have him drop out of a race on a promise of a reward that would come later. He says, "the offer is so foolish it wouldn't even be offered."
* Edelson presents the court with emails between Kilrea and Baird that were sent at the time Kilrea has testified he was meeting with O'Brien for the first time. Kilrea says he sent them, but can't recall where they were sent from. The emails refer to light rail. Kilrea writes, "Thanks for clarifying. You were great on CJOH." Baird responds "Bob [Chiarelli] seems to be feeling the heat!!!"
* Edelson introduces various emails that seem to lack relevance. The Judge asks, "how is this helping me?", and when Edelson suggests he can move on, the Judge asks that he does.
* Judge asks Edelson how much longer he'll take with Kilrea. Edelson answers he's not very good at estimating these sorts of things.
Points of interest outside of the main story:
* For the first time, O'Brien's wife Colleen wasn't present for the first half of the day.
* Lots of time was spent on the term "rat-f***d." Edelson said in a police statement Kilrea said O'Brien told him "I will rat-f*** you", but in court Kilrea said "We could've rat-f***d you". Kilrea testified he didn't know who "we" referred to.
* Edelson asks the Judge if he has a copy of transcripts from Kilrea's previous testimony. Judge Cunningham replies "No, but I have very good notes."
* In reference to the alleged NPB appointment, Edelson points to changes in the affidavit drafts... an earlier version reads "what if that can happen"; the final version reads "what if I can make that happen."
* Edelson refers to media coverage and mentions the word "bribe." Kilrea tells the court he wants to clarify, "I always have said it's not a bribe, but an offer."
* Edelson tells the court that in Kilrea's March 4 2009 interview with the Crown, he says he was 5th in the queue for the NPB appointment. Edelson says this detail has never been brought up before.
* Kilrea has only testified to one phone call after the alleged meeting between himself and O'Brien. Edelson shows phone records that indicate there were four calls on that day - two were initiated by Kilrea.
* Edelson shows the court phone records that indicate that during Kilrea's meeting with Pantazopolous, he makes a 9 minute phone call to Tierney.
* Kilrea has testified that Pantazopolous said the NPB appointment was "too hot to handle" and he would have to wait until after the election for anything to be done. Edelson suggests that when Pantazopolous takes the stand he will strongly deny this conversation happened. Edelson goes on to suggest that only a fool would take an offer that would have him drop out of a race on a promise of a reward that would come later. He says, "the offer is so foolish it wouldn't even be offered."
* Edelson presents the court with emails between Kilrea and Baird that were sent at the time Kilrea has testified he was meeting with O'Brien for the first time. Kilrea says he sent them, but can't recall where they were sent from. The emails refer to light rail. Kilrea writes, "Thanks for clarifying. You were great on CJOH." Baird responds "Bob [Chiarelli] seems to be feeling the heat!!!"
* Edelson introduces various emails that seem to lack relevance. The Judge asks, "how is this helping me?", and when Edelson suggests he can move on, the Judge asks that he does.
* Judge asks Edelson how much longer he'll take with Kilrea. Edelson answers he's not very good at estimating these sorts of things.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A short week off to slow start
We got off to a bit of a late start today, and the first thing on the agenda was the fallout from Thursday. Each side presented its take on Edelson's line of questioning on the NPB appointment during his cross examination of Kilrea. The Judge ruled that Edelson's questions were appropriate and that there was nothing "reckless" about them. The Judge also ruled he couldn't find any evidence in Baird's statements that he told Kilrea he wasn't qualified for the NPB appointment, nor could he find evidence that he mentioned the Accountability Act to Kilrea.
Interestingly, during the review of Baird's statements to police, it seems in the first interview he says the NPB did come up, but in the second interview says it didn't.
Most of the afternoon was devoted to Edelson's analysis of Kilrea's campaign expenses.
Nearing the end of the day Edelson got to Kilrea's affidavit. Edelson went over five drafts of the affidavit leading up to the version that was sworn. There were changes in dates throughout the versions and in the first version there was no mention of Kilrea's meeting with Pantazopolous - that was added in the second version. The focus was also on the date of the first meeting between Kilrea and O'Brien. Edelson told the court that up until March 4 of this year, Kilrea had said the meeting took place on July 5; in his testimony Kilrea says the date is July 12. Kilrea maintained "I always said I could be out by a week."
Edelson tells Kilrea the story wasn't that complicated because it only consisted of a few meetings, emails and phone calls. He said Kilrea could've been more accurate, "This is Mr. Integrity... this is Mr. Affidavit. This is Terry Kilrea, Mr. Accuracy."
Edelson suggests Kilrea was worried about O'Brien contemplating entering the race despite telling the media it was good for democracy... "He [O'Brien] was gonna suck all the air our of your room."
A note... former staffer to O'Brien, Lindsay Valente makes an appearance in the courtroom for the better part of the day.
Also, the Judge decided that tomorrow proceedings will begin a half hour earlier.
Interestingly, during the review of Baird's statements to police, it seems in the first interview he says the NPB did come up, but in the second interview says it didn't.
Most of the afternoon was devoted to Edelson's analysis of Kilrea's campaign expenses.
Nearing the end of the day Edelson got to Kilrea's affidavit. Edelson went over five drafts of the affidavit leading up to the version that was sworn. There were changes in dates throughout the versions and in the first version there was no mention of Kilrea's meeting with Pantazopolous - that was added in the second version. The focus was also on the date of the first meeting between Kilrea and O'Brien. Edelson told the court that up until March 4 of this year, Kilrea had said the meeting took place on July 5; in his testimony Kilrea says the date is July 12. Kilrea maintained "I always said I could be out by a week."
Edelson tells Kilrea the story wasn't that complicated because it only consisted of a few meetings, emails and phone calls. He said Kilrea could've been more accurate, "This is Mr. Integrity... this is Mr. Affidavit. This is Terry Kilrea, Mr. Accuracy."
Edelson suggests Kilrea was worried about O'Brien contemplating entering the race despite telling the media it was good for democracy... "He [O'Brien] was gonna suck all the air our of your room."
A note... former staffer to O'Brien, Lindsay Valente makes an appearance in the courtroom for the better part of the day.
Also, the Judge decided that tomorrow proceedings will begin a half hour earlier.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The bombshell that was/wasn't and the week that will be
Sorry for the delay... I hope it'll suffice to say that the kitten chewed through my laptop recharger. And - as I just discovered - my notepad.
There's been a lot of buzz about what happened before court adjourned on Thursday. As you already know, Edelson ended the day with another bombshell. This time he stunned Kilrea by suggesting that contrary to his testimony, in a statement to police, John Baird said that when he met with Kilrea in his office, the National Parole Board appointment was discussed and he told Kilrea he wasn't qualified for the job. Edelson told Kilrea, "if you're wrong about that July 19 meeting, we really have to question if you're right about anything."
But hours after court adjourned for the week, Baird's office sent out a statement claiming Edelson had made a mistake and that the comments in question were not made to Kilrea, rather they were made to the police (ie. Baird told police that Kilrea wasn't qualified, but he didn't say it to Kilrea himself during the meeting).
It's a bit of an unusual move for there to be a response to what goes on in the courtroom, especially considering that Baird may be on the stand this week. To this point, Edelson has been meticulous and deliberate in his questioning, so we'll have to wait until Tuesday to see how this issue is handled inside the courtroom. It may be an error, but as some have hinted, it may be strategy.
During this short week, Edelson will wrap up his cross examination and the Crown will have a chance to re-examine their witness as well. And perhaps, after that, we may see Baird on the stand.
There's been a lot of buzz about what happened before court adjourned on Thursday. As you already know, Edelson ended the day with another bombshell. This time he stunned Kilrea by suggesting that contrary to his testimony, in a statement to police, John Baird said that when he met with Kilrea in his office, the National Parole Board appointment was discussed and he told Kilrea he wasn't qualified for the job. Edelson told Kilrea, "if you're wrong about that July 19 meeting, we really have to question if you're right about anything."
But hours after court adjourned for the week, Baird's office sent out a statement claiming Edelson had made a mistake and that the comments in question were not made to Kilrea, rather they were made to the police (ie. Baird told police that Kilrea wasn't qualified, but he didn't say it to Kilrea himself during the meeting).
It's a bit of an unusual move for there to be a response to what goes on in the courtroom, especially considering that Baird may be on the stand this week. To this point, Edelson has been meticulous and deliberate in his questioning, so we'll have to wait until Tuesday to see how this issue is handled inside the courtroom. It may be an error, but as some have hinted, it may be strategy.
During this short week, Edelson will wrap up his cross examination and the Crown will have a chance to re-examine their witness as well. And perhaps, after that, we may see Baird on the stand.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Cliffhanger continues...
Just like yesterday, proceedings were adjourned today on a cliffhanger. This time they dealt with the issue of how the original allegations ended up in the hands of the Ottawa Citizen. That line of questioning is expected to be picked up tomorrow.
Here are a couple of quick notes you may find interesting:
* The entire morning session was completely devoted to a procedureal issue that I noted in my earlier post. This was resolved with both Kilrea and the Ottawa Citizen waiving any client-solicitor privilege in regards to the lawyer's notes on Kilrea's affidavit. Both sides will be presented with transcripts of the notes and Judge Cunningham noted that he had doubt about whether there would be anything in them that would require the privilege.
* After the lunch break the Judge began the session by telling Edelson "perhaps we've spent enough time on peripheral issues and it's time to get to the crux of the case." Edelson says he's turning to the immediate issue and "we're heading there very quickly." For the first time that I've seen, the Judge takes off his glasses and rubs his eye, sighs and rests his forehead in his hands.
* At one point during Kilrea's testimony, he describes having a "quick" meeting with the Crown a couple of months ago. Judge responds jokingly "in politics, 2 hours is a quick meeting". Ripples of laughter in the courtroom.
Here are a couple of quick notes you may find interesting:
* The entire morning session was completely devoted to a procedureal issue that I noted in my earlier post. This was resolved with both Kilrea and the Ottawa Citizen waiving any client-solicitor privilege in regards to the lawyer's notes on Kilrea's affidavit. Both sides will be presented with transcripts of the notes and Judge Cunningham noted that he had doubt about whether there would be anything in them that would require the privilege.
* After the lunch break the Judge began the session by telling Edelson "perhaps we've spent enough time on peripheral issues and it's time to get to the crux of the case." Edelson says he's turning to the immediate issue and "we're heading there very quickly." For the first time that I've seen, the Judge takes off his glasses and rubs his eye, sighs and rests his forehead in his hands.
* At one point during Kilrea's testimony, he describes having a "quick" meeting with the Crown a couple of months ago. Judge responds jokingly "in politics, 2 hours is a quick meeting". Ripples of laughter in the courtroom.
Proceedings on hold this morning
Proceedings in courtroom 36 have come to a halt. Crown laywer Scott Hutchison told the court that something came up last night that was of some concern. It has to do with the relationship Kilrea had with the lawyer who presided over his affidavit. The Crown and the Defence have taken a break to meet with all parties to inquire about the relationship. There are apparently documents in the Ottawa Citizen's possession that the Crown and Defence haven't seen, and in order to decide whether those documents are privy to solicitor-client privilege, the lawyers have to determine the nature of the relationship between Kilrea and the lawyer.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Cliffhanger and other notes...
The afternoon session today ended with a cliffhanger of sorts.
Edelson had just started touching on the issue of finances. He asked Kilrea about the fundraising that went on during the 2006 mayoral campaign and how the $30,000 in funds was spent. Kilrea testifies that radio ads were paid for and mentions a Liberal event in Orleans. When Edelson presses him for where the rest of the money went, Kilrea says he can’t remember. He also says he may not have had signing authority to the account where the money was kept, but can’t remember.
Kilrea says he first thought he would have to drop out of the race in early August. Edelson suggests that by mid August, Kilrea had less than $5000 left and his prospects were weak, especially after being unable to raise money at a fundraiser. Edelson asks why Kilrea would then rent an office space in mid August when he pulled out of the race on August 31. Court is dismissed at this point.
Other points of interest today:
** Edelson told the court Kilrea was interested in the media limelight and way always looking to make a splash. Among his examples, he pointed to the dispute Kilrea had with then mayor Bob Chiarelli about light rail during the 2006 campaign. Edelson told the court that on three separate occasions in 2006, Kilrea said he spoke to John Baird and had confirmed that federal funding was not dependent on the route. In his testimony today, Kilrea said he never spoke with Baird, prompting Edelson to say that he was either lying in the courtroom or had lied to the public. He said “you misled the public, trying to show you’re a big shot.”
** Deeming it an “example of pettiness” Edelson tells the court that on the eve of the 2003 election, Kilrea filed a complaint about Chiarelli’s lawn signs. Kilrea testifies that according to the Municipal Elections Act, signs must be a certain distance away from polling stations. Edelson questions why Kilrea would file a complaint about signs in 2003 but not about a “bribe” in 2006.
** When Edelson discusses a complaint that Kilrea says he remembers filing, but not how it was resolved, Edelson asks, “Do you have a selective memory? Spotty amnesia?” Kilrea responds “No, but I can’t remember every single email.”
** Edelson offers to Kilrea what he calls “food for thought.” He tells the court that in her statements to police, Kilrea’s common law wife said Kilrea talked to her about a lack of funding and possibly dropping out of the race as early as June and July. Kilrea has testified that he hadn’t begun to think of that possibility until August.
Edelson had just started touching on the issue of finances. He asked Kilrea about the fundraising that went on during the 2006 mayoral campaign and how the $30,000 in funds was spent. Kilrea testifies that radio ads were paid for and mentions a Liberal event in Orleans. When Edelson presses him for where the rest of the money went, Kilrea says he can’t remember. He also says he may not have had signing authority to the account where the money was kept, but can’t remember.
Kilrea says he first thought he would have to drop out of the race in early August. Edelson suggests that by mid August, Kilrea had less than $5000 left and his prospects were weak, especially after being unable to raise money at a fundraiser. Edelson asks why Kilrea would then rent an office space in mid August when he pulled out of the race on August 31. Court is dismissed at this point.
Other points of interest today:
** Edelson told the court Kilrea was interested in the media limelight and way always looking to make a splash. Among his examples, he pointed to the dispute Kilrea had with then mayor Bob Chiarelli about light rail during the 2006 campaign. Edelson told the court that on three separate occasions in 2006, Kilrea said he spoke to John Baird and had confirmed that federal funding was not dependent on the route. In his testimony today, Kilrea said he never spoke with Baird, prompting Edelson to say that he was either lying in the courtroom or had lied to the public. He said “you misled the public, trying to show you’re a big shot.”
** Deeming it an “example of pettiness” Edelson tells the court that on the eve of the 2003 election, Kilrea filed a complaint about Chiarelli’s lawn signs. Kilrea testifies that according to the Municipal Elections Act, signs must be a certain distance away from polling stations. Edelson questions why Kilrea would file a complaint about signs in 2003 but not about a “bribe” in 2006.
** When Edelson discusses a complaint that Kilrea says he remembers filing, but not how it was resolved, Edelson asks, “Do you have a selective memory? Spotty amnesia?” Kilrea responds “No, but I can’t remember every single email.”
** Edelson offers to Kilrea what he calls “food for thought.” He tells the court that in her statements to police, Kilrea’s common law wife said Kilrea talked to her about a lack of funding and possibly dropping out of the race as early as June and July. Kilrea has testified that he hadn’t begun to think of that possibility until August.
Kilrea testimony day 2
So far today, Edelson has continued peppering Kilrea with detailed questions about his campaigns and his statements to the media.
The Crown has objected twice. Once to ask the court to allow Kilrea to read through some of the articles Edelson was using. Hutchison argued that Kilrea couldn't be expected to remember things he said in an article published 3 years ago. The second objection was to ask Edelson to allow Kilrea to respond to the questions that he posed. Hutchison said he had been trying to not interfere, and though he realizes that the line of questioning is heated, he wants Kilrea to be able to answer the question before Edelson asks another.
Several times Edelson has told Kilrea he has gone off topic or answered a question that wasn't asked. At one point Edelson said "try not to anticipate questions I haven't asked yet."
During other testimony, Edelson has described Kilrea's use of qualified answers as "splitting a hair with an axe." Becoming agitated at one point Edleson said "you are trying to weasel your way out of an answer."
The courtroom is full again today as several people come and go, among them several students.
O'Brien is once again intently watching the proceedings from the front row.
David Gibbons is also present in the courtroom. He is O'Brien's former executive assistant. At the beginning of the day, the Crown addressed his presence. Hutchison noted to the judge that Gibbons was present and although he hadn't been subpoenaed he may at some point be called to testify. The Crown suggested the fact that he was in the courtroom during the proceedings could change the weight of any testimony Gibbons could give in the future. The judge agreed but allowed him to stay.
The Crown has objected twice. Once to ask the court to allow Kilrea to read through some of the articles Edelson was using. Hutchison argued that Kilrea couldn't be expected to remember things he said in an article published 3 years ago. The second objection was to ask Edelson to allow Kilrea to respond to the questions that he posed. Hutchison said he had been trying to not interfere, and though he realizes that the line of questioning is heated, he wants Kilrea to be able to answer the question before Edelson asks another.
Several times Edelson has told Kilrea he has gone off topic or answered a question that wasn't asked. At one point Edelson said "try not to anticipate questions I haven't asked yet."
During other testimony, Edelson has described Kilrea's use of qualified answers as "splitting a hair with an axe." Becoming agitated at one point Edleson said "you are trying to weasel your way out of an answer."
The courtroom is full again today as several people come and go, among them several students.
O'Brien is once again intently watching the proceedings from the front row.
David Gibbons is also present in the courtroom. He is O'Brien's former executive assistant. At the beginning of the day, the Crown addressed his presence. Hutchison noted to the judge that Gibbons was present and although he hadn't been subpoenaed he may at some point be called to testify. The Crown suggested the fact that he was in the courtroom during the proceedings could change the weight of any testimony Gibbons could give in the future. The judge agreed but allowed him to stay.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Kilrea testimony highlights
You’ve heard the reports and you know what happened. Here are some highlights that you may or may not have yet heard:
- Just as he was last week, Barry McLaughlin (widely known as a media guru) was in the courtroom once more today
- There were so many boxes of documents and papers that the defence had someone bring in an additional cart that was stacked with about 10 boxes
- Court will not be in session on May 28th because O’Brien requested the day off to attend his son’s graduation from McGill
- Hutchison wanted to go through the charges O’Brien is facing as they are “not offences we deal with on a regular basis”
- When explaining the verbose charge under section 121 that doesn’t read very easily, Hutchison said it was “something only a lawyer could have written”
- A major source of contention: the date the alleged first meeting between Kilrea and O’Brien is said to have occurred. In his opening statement Hutchison said it was July 12… this was the same date Kilrea later testified to as well. The Defence points out in Kilrea’s affidavit the date is actually July 5.
- Kilrea testifies that when O’Brien made him the offer of the National Parole Board during that first meeting, he “most certainly did” consider it
- In emails between Kilrea and John Baird, Baird is referred to by his nickname “Rusty”
- Kilrea testifies that when he was notified the Attorney General was interfering with his campaign citing a conflict of interest, Kilrea sent an email to Baird in which he states “I hate Liberals”
- Kilrea testifies that when he met with Baird to discuss the situation with the Attorney General, Baird offered to call Michael Bryant but Kilrea told him not to
- During cross-examination when Edelson asks Kilrea about an interview on CFRA on April 7 with Ron Corbett, Kilrea states he can’t remember all the details from the interview to which Edelson says he’s mystified that Kilrea doesn’t remember the content from such a recent interview but does remember dates from 2006
- When Edelson asks if he is politically savvy, Kilrea says “No… I’m not a politically correct individual”
- At one point Kilrea yawns and Edelson says “I’m sorry I’ll try not to bore you.” This is the first time the Crown objects.
- During cross-examination Edelson points to contradictory information from Kilrea. He says that during the interview with CFRA’s Ron Corbett, Kilrea said he’d never run against an incumbent again. When Edelson asks whether he’d run against councillor Alex Cullen in 2010 in the event that Cullen doesn’t run for mayor but runs as a councillor again, Kilrea says he will.
Kilrea testifies
Court has adjourned until 2:15 this afternoon.
Terry Kilrea has been on the stand for the majority of the day. The focus of his testimony
has been on the events leading from his initial contact with O'Brien up until his withdrawal
from the race in August 2006.
One of the first points of contention was around the date of the first meeting between
Kilrea and O'Brien. Hutchison and Kilrea are referring to that meeting as having taken place
on July 12. However, Edelson objected, citing Kilrea's signed affidavit that states the
meeting took place a week earlier on July 5.
In describing the first meeting on an outside patio at 700 Sussex Drive, Kilrea testified
that O'Brien told him he was thinking of entering the race. He also told Kilrea that his
polling numbers indicated the vote would be split if he did, and that Kilrea "represents the
problem." He went on to testify that O'Brien said some prominent Conservatives wanted them
to "come to an arrangement" or neither of them would win. He said that there were several
Conservatives who liked Kilrea and wanted to see him in a good place.
Kilrea went on to say that O'Brien had said his team would reimburse Kilrea's expenses,
which Kilrea testified were between $20,000 to $30,000. He testified that when he told
O'Brien that he wouldn't leave the race, O'Brien said "this meeting is a courtesy... we
could've just rat-f***d you."
Kilrea testified that When o'Brien asked him what he did and what if they could find an
appointment for him, Kilrea responded that the only thing he'd be interested in would be the
National Parole Board. He testified that O'Brien asked "what if I could make that happen" to
which Kilrea said he'd have to think about it. When Hutchison asked whether Kilrea had
considered it, Kilrea said "I most certainly did."
Kilrea testified that only hours later he got a phone call from O'Brien telling him he had
spoken with John Reynolds and explained to him the specifics of the job. That included a 5
year position with an annual salary of $110,000.
Kilrea also testified he had a meeting with Dimitri Pantazopolous, a pollster for O'Brien.
During that meeting, Kilrea says he asked him whether he was aware there had been talks of
an appointment, to which Pantazopolous replied "it's too hot to handle... we'll have to wait
until after the election."
The Crown has named some of its witnesses. They include Heather Tessier, Patazopolous, Tom
Bennett, and John Light.
The courtroom is completely packed. There is barely any room for onlookers to sit- and there
are plenty of them. The media presence is the heaviest it has been since the trial started.
AD
Terry Kilrea has been on the stand for the majority of the day. The focus of his testimony
has been on the events leading from his initial contact with O'Brien up until his withdrawal
from the race in August 2006.
One of the first points of contention was around the date of the first meeting between
Kilrea and O'Brien. Hutchison and Kilrea are referring to that meeting as having taken place
on July 12. However, Edelson objected, citing Kilrea's signed affidavit that states the
meeting took place a week earlier on July 5.
In describing the first meeting on an outside patio at 700 Sussex Drive, Kilrea testified
that O'Brien told him he was thinking of entering the race. He also told Kilrea that his
polling numbers indicated the vote would be split if he did, and that Kilrea "represents the
problem." He went on to testify that O'Brien said some prominent Conservatives wanted them
to "come to an arrangement" or neither of them would win. He said that there were several
Conservatives who liked Kilrea and wanted to see him in a good place.
Kilrea went on to say that O'Brien had said his team would reimburse Kilrea's expenses,
which Kilrea testified were between $20,000 to $30,000. He testified that when he told
O'Brien that he wouldn't leave the race, O'Brien said "this meeting is a courtesy... we
could've just rat-f***d you."
Kilrea testified that When o'Brien asked him what he did and what if they could find an
appointment for him, Kilrea responded that the only thing he'd be interested in would be the
National Parole Board. He testified that O'Brien asked "what if I could make that happen" to
which Kilrea said he'd have to think about it. When Hutchison asked whether Kilrea had
considered it, Kilrea said "I most certainly did."
Kilrea testified that only hours later he got a phone call from O'Brien telling him he had
spoken with John Reynolds and explained to him the specifics of the job. That included a 5
year position with an annual salary of $110,000.
Kilrea also testified he had a meeting with Dimitri Pantazopolous, a pollster for O'Brien.
During that meeting, Kilrea says he asked him whether he was aware there had been talks of
an appointment, to which Pantazopolous replied "it's too hot to handle... we'll have to wait
until after the election."
The Crown has named some of its witnesses. They include Heather Tessier, Patazopolous, Tom
Bennett, and John Light.
The courtroom is completely packed. There is barely any room for onlookers to sit- and there
are plenty of them. The media presence is the heaviest it has been since the trial started.
AD
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The trial to date
Welcome to my CFRA blog on the Larry O'Brien trial.
Through these entries my aim is to provide you with information and details that either don't fit or don't have a place in my on-air reports. As this is not a Twitter feed I won't be posting information every couple of minutes, rather a few times a day in a longer format. Since you likely don't have the time to step in to Courtroom 36, I'm going to do my best to be your eyes and ears and each day give you a glimpse of how the case is unfolding.
So, where are we at?
First, the fact that I'm able to blog from inside the courtroom is already a historic first. Judge Douglas Cunningham's decision to allow the media this unprecedented access is certainly telling of what kind of a judge he is. Though he joked last week that he was "technologically challenged" and that he would find monitors in the courtroom helpful when video statements are shown as long as he didn't have to press any buttons, Judge Cunningham recognizes the expanding role technology is playing in the lives of reporters.
Yet while blogging will be allowed, videocameras will not. The CBC's application to have streaming from the courtroom was flatly denied. Lawyer Daniel Henry was verbally slammed by both the Crown and the Defence by how late the application was filed. The least amount of notice is 15 days although the norm is 30. The CBC's application came barely three working days before the start date, or as Judge Cunningham put it "on the eve of the trial." Thus, this issue essentially came down to timeliness with both Crown attorney Scott Hutchison and Defence lawyer Michael Edelson stating that Henry must be oblivious to the preparation that goes into a criminal trial if he thought they'd have the time to devote themselves to his "extraordinary" application." This was only one of several scathing remarks. Another came when Henry paused to find some of his papers and was interrupted by Hutchison who told the Judge that Henry was completely off topic and wasn't addressing the appropriate issue. With the Judge agreeing, Henry's argument was quickly silenced and he was forced to take a seat.
On Day 2 of the trial (Tuesday May 5) proceedings barely lasted an hour. The issue of hearsay was presented to the Judge. According to Vince Clifford (another Defence lawyer on Edelson's team) Cunningham was given five hours worth of reading from both lawyers. Hearsay is going to play a significant role in this trial with Edelson telling the court it was "unprecedented" in the amount, and that it would be a "very significant part of the case." It will be up to the Judge to decide what evidence will or will not be admissible.
What's interesting about my ability to blog throughout the day while evidence is being presented is that what is said -and therefore what I pass on to you- may be deemed inadmissible in the end. So, while we will all be aware of testimony, if in the end the Judge deems it inadmissible, it will not play a role in his decision.
Of course, the only reason you'll be able to hear about inadmissible evidence is because no jury is present. Usually, when a judge is deciding if evidence is or isn't admissible, the jury is sent out of the room while the lawyers debate it. When a decision is made the jury is called back in... and since the media can't report on what is said while the jury is absent, the public never learns about the inadmissible evidence.
Among the evidence that Hutchison may present will be statements from Tim Tierney and Heather Tessier; emails between Kilrea and John Baird; emails between Kilrea and O’Brien; and conversations between Kilrea and Dimitri Pantazopoulos.
Day 3 of the trial begins today. It is expected that the Judge will explain how he will deal with hearsay evidence and Hutchison and Edelson will lay out their opening statements. Kilrea is expected to be the first witness to take the stand and that may be as soon as today.
Be sure to check in a couple of times a day to get the latest. Or choose to "follow" me and get notified when a new blog has been posted.
AD
Through these entries my aim is to provide you with information and details that either don't fit or don't have a place in my on-air reports. As this is not a Twitter feed I won't be posting information every couple of minutes, rather a few times a day in a longer format. Since you likely don't have the time to step in to Courtroom 36, I'm going to do my best to be your eyes and ears and each day give you a glimpse of how the case is unfolding.
So, where are we at?
First, the fact that I'm able to blog from inside the courtroom is already a historic first. Judge Douglas Cunningham's decision to allow the media this unprecedented access is certainly telling of what kind of a judge he is. Though he joked last week that he was "technologically challenged" and that he would find monitors in the courtroom helpful when video statements are shown as long as he didn't have to press any buttons, Judge Cunningham recognizes the expanding role technology is playing in the lives of reporters.
Yet while blogging will be allowed, videocameras will not. The CBC's application to have streaming from the courtroom was flatly denied. Lawyer Daniel Henry was verbally slammed by both the Crown and the Defence by how late the application was filed. The least amount of notice is 15 days although the norm is 30. The CBC's application came barely three working days before the start date, or as Judge Cunningham put it "on the eve of the trial." Thus, this issue essentially came down to timeliness with both Crown attorney Scott Hutchison and Defence lawyer Michael Edelson stating that Henry must be oblivious to the preparation that goes into a criminal trial if he thought they'd have the time to devote themselves to his "extraordinary" application." This was only one of several scathing remarks. Another came when Henry paused to find some of his papers and was interrupted by Hutchison who told the Judge that Henry was completely off topic and wasn't addressing the appropriate issue. With the Judge agreeing, Henry's argument was quickly silenced and he was forced to take a seat.
On Day 2 of the trial (Tuesday May 5) proceedings barely lasted an hour. The issue of hearsay was presented to the Judge. According to Vince Clifford (another Defence lawyer on Edelson's team) Cunningham was given five hours worth of reading from both lawyers. Hearsay is going to play a significant role in this trial with Edelson telling the court it was "unprecedented" in the amount, and that it would be a "very significant part of the case." It will be up to the Judge to decide what evidence will or will not be admissible.
What's interesting about my ability to blog throughout the day while evidence is being presented is that what is said -and therefore what I pass on to you- may be deemed inadmissible in the end. So, while we will all be aware of testimony, if in the end the Judge deems it inadmissible, it will not play a role in his decision.
Of course, the only reason you'll be able to hear about inadmissible evidence is because no jury is present. Usually, when a judge is deciding if evidence is or isn't admissible, the jury is sent out of the room while the lawyers debate it. When a decision is made the jury is called back in... and since the media can't report on what is said while the jury is absent, the public never learns about the inadmissible evidence.
Among the evidence that Hutchison may present will be statements from Tim Tierney and Heather Tessier; emails between Kilrea and John Baird; emails between Kilrea and O’Brien; and conversations between Kilrea and Dimitri Pantazopoulos.
Day 3 of the trial begins today. It is expected that the Judge will explain how he will deal with hearsay evidence and Hutchison and Edelson will lay out their opening statements. Kilrea is expected to be the first witness to take the stand and that may be as soon as today.
Be sure to check in a couple of times a day to get the latest. Or choose to "follow" me and get notified when a new blog has been posted.
AD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
