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.