Coutts trial lawyer suggests jury was in hurry to start out lengthy weekend

Article content material

LETHBRIDGE — The lawyer for a person convicted of mischief for his actions on the Coutts border blockade drew the ire of a choose Monday by suggesting jurors rushed to a verdict as a result of they had been in a rush to get out earlier than the August lengthy weekend.

Marilyn Burns additionally drew criticism from the Crown prosecutor when she hinted the jurors had been culturally biased after they convicted Anthony Olienick on a firearms possession cost.

Article content material

Burns’ feedback got here in Court docket of King’s Bench as attorneys on either side and Justice David Labrenz started discussing what details must be thought-about in figuring out a match sentence for Olienick and Chris Carbert.

Earlier this month, a jury convicted Olienick and Carbert of mischief and possession of a firearm for a harmful function for his or her position on the Coutts border blockade in early 2022.

Olienick was additionally convicted of possession of a pipe bomb.

The jury discovered each not responsible of the extra severe cost of conspiring to homicide cops.

‘You’re being very insulting to the jury,’ choose says

The jury got here to a choice on its third day of deliberations, late on the evening of Aug. 2, instantly earlier than the August lengthy weekend.

Burns informed Labrenz the timing was curious.

“This jury took a very long time to return to this choice,” stated Burns. “Did they arrive to the identical conclusion on depend two for various causes as a result of it was late on a Friday night earlier than a protracted weekend and there have been compromises? We will’t know that.”

Labrenz shot again: “You’re being very insulting to the jury. (Are you) making an attempt to insinuate they rushed to judgment as a result of it was a protracted weekend?”

Article content material

Article content material

Burns replied, “They had been an excellent jury. I don’t imply to be insulting.”

Burns additionally drew criticism when, whereas discussing the weapons cost, she stated the jury made a “cultural choice.”

She didn’t clarify the comment, however Crown prosecutor Steven Johnston informed courtroom she was inferring an city bias.

“The jury is who we bought,” Johnston informed courtroom.

“(Burns) making that suggestion that they’re simply someway simply metropolis folks that didn’t perceive how the agricultural folks use firearms is simply past the pale, fairly frankly.”

Particulars of what’s mentioned contained in the jury room are personal.

A choose usually makes his findings of details utilized in sentencing based mostly on his or her personal choice however after a jury trial will hear arguments from each the Crown and defence on their interpretations.

Olienick and Carbert had been charged after RCMP discovered weapons, ammunition and physique armour in trailers close to the blockade on the key Canada-U.S. border crossing. The blockade was one in every of a number of held throughout the nation to protest COVID-19 guidelines and vaccine mandates.

Carbert’s lawyer, Katherin Beyak, performed down her consumer’s weapon-possession conviction as easy pleasure in a brand new weapon.

Article content material

“I might urge this courtroom to search out that Mr. Carbert’s harmful function was doubtlessly simply exhibiting off,” Beyak stated. “There’s no violence being directed by Mr. Carbert towards the police.”

Blockaders supposed to make use of weapons, Crown argues

Labrenz challenged that comment. He famous that there have been textual content messages from Carbert to his mom speaking a couple of conflict coming and that he might not survive it.

“There’s no immediacy to that risk,” Beyak stated.

“Sounds fairly quick to me,” Labrenz stated.

“Not that the conflict’s about to start out,” she replied.

Johnston stated the not-guilty verdict on the conspiracy cost opened the door for the jurors to search out the pair not responsible on the weapons depend.

However they didn’t, stated Johnston, including that reality alone is noteworthy in sentencing. He stated the jury believed the weapons had been there for use towards police if mandatory, therefore the conviction on that depend.

He famous that Olienick informed officers that he thought-about himself a “sheepdog” who could be there to guard the protesters if police superior on them.

“The sheepdog defence is one other manner of seeking to say they’re there — that being the firearms and ammunition and all of the armoury — to have a shootout with police. That’s what the jury has discovered within the Crown’s place,” Johnston stated.

This report by The Canadian Press was first revealed Aug. 26, 2024.

Article content material