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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
