Your Interview

Why is it that the Crown used the video taped confession in the early stages of the trial? Since the testimony of the majoirty of the witnesses was put largely into question, and their reliability was questioned as well, it seems that the Crown would have been better off to finish a lengthly trial with the most compelling evidence, the video taped confession, being the final piece presented to the jury.

Christopher Sherrin: The order in which evidence is presented is largely a tactical issue and different counsel will follow different tactical strategies. It can be beneficial to present the most powerful evidence early, in the hope that it will incline the jury to think the accused is guilty and thereby colour their assessment of the more problematic evidence.

will the crown learn what they did wrong not to get a first degree verdict. will they still seek first degree for the remaining 20 victims

Christopher Sherrin: It is difficult to say whether the Crown did something wrong or whether the evidence simply did not support a conviction for first degree murder. If the Crown proceeds with the remaining charges it will undoubtedly apply any lessons it can from the first trial. But whether the Crown proceeds with first or second degree murder charges will mostly reflect an assessment of the strength of the evidence relating to those charges, partly in light of the jury’s assessment of the strength of any similar evidence in the first trial.

There were parts of the trial where the judge had prevented the media from reporting on the proceedings. When can we find out what took place in these closed-door sessions?

Christopher Sherrin: Publication bans normally expire at the end of a trial, but about a month ago the court ordered that the publication ban in Pickton’s case continue until the court orders otherwise. There is a concern that release of the information could prejudice Pickton’s right to a fair trial on the remaining 20 charges.

In light of the fact that Picton was handed second degree convictions, is it not possible that the jury was not convinced that he was solely responsible for all of the deaths? Would this not neccessitate a second trial which might shed more light on other persons of interest like the brother. Why were the people who either witnessed a slaughter or were told by Picton that he was murdering women not held accountable for not informing the police. I think a second trial might clear up some of these questions.

Christopher Sherrin: It is possible that the jury was not convinced he was solely responsible for all the deaths but the issue will not likely be resolved through a second trial. Pickton cannot be tried again for the same offences unless there is a successful appeal at which a new trial is ordered. The police could eventually charge others for participating in the murders, leading to another trial, but the present position of the authorities appears to be that there is insufficient evidence against anyone else. Not telling the police about crimes you observed or heard about is not an offence under Canadian criminal law.

Are these first 6 victims the Crowns strongest case? Why did the Judge decide to hear only these 6 first?

Christopher Sherrin: In brief, the trial judge decided to sever the six murder charges from the other 20 in order to keep the trial manageable. The judge felt that that trying all 26 murder charges at once would have imposed an unreasonable burden on the jury because of how long the trial would have taken, how much evidence the jury would have had to consider, and how complex the legal issues would have been. The judge also felt that the evidence relating to the first six charges was materially different from the evidence relating to the other charges.

I don't understand how multiple murders at different dates can all be 2nd degree? At some stage the accused willfully and with malicious intent picked up a lady with the object of killing her. What am I missing as a lay person?

Christopher Sherrin: It is impossible to know why the jury decided that Pickton was only guilty of second degree murder. The jury does not deliver reasons for their decision. It is technically possible that the jury thought that all of the six murders were committed without premeditation. The trial judge may have directed the jurors not to consider the evidence pertaining to one murder in coming to a decision regarding another murder and the jury may not have been convinced with respect to any single murder that it was planned and deliberate.

The conviction for second degree murder may also constitute a compromise verdict, i.e. a ‘halfway house’ acceptable to all members of the jury, some of whom favoured an acquittal or a conviction for manslaughter and others of whom favoured a conviction for first degree murder. Compromise verdicts are not supposed to happen, but they probably do.

Given that the trial just concluded was probably the most widely covered and grizzly in Canadian history, is it possible that the jury pool is now effectively contaminated?

Christopher Sherrin: Contamination is a very real possibility and jurors at any subsequent trial would have to be carefully screened to ensure that they either had no substantial knowledge of the first trial or were able to set aside any knowledge they did have and decide the case based solely on the evidence at the subsequent trial. The trial judge at that trial would undoubtedly caution the jury in very strong terms not to let the earlier proceedings in any way affect their decision.

Why did the prosecution or defense not call on Pickton family members to testify, specifically his brother.

Christopher Sherrin: The decision to call or not call witnesses is made based on a number of considerations, including tactical ones. I cannot speak to exactly why decisions were made regarding Pickton’s family members, but both the prosecution and the defence may have had something to lose by calling Pickton’s brother. If the prosecution called him to deny his involvement he would have been exposed to potentially damaging cross-examination. If the defence called him to suggest he was the real perpetrator the jury would have heard first hand his adamant and potentially convincing denial.

My question is simple, Why don't we in Canada have the death penalty for the likes of Picton, Olson, Bernardo,Homolka to name a few, or at least when the sentence is life -give them life and stop putting the families through the torture of the parole system.

Christopher Sherrin: People disagree about the appropriateness of the death penalty. The arguments for and against are more moral than legal. But in recent times there has been a strong movement away from the death penalty in almost all western nations.

The reasons are many. People fear that an innocent person may be executed. People are concerned that leaving convicted offenders on death row while their appeals are outstanding constitutes a form of long-term torture. People are appalled at the cruel way in which the death penalty is often administered. People are concerned that death sentences are meted out disproportionately to members of certain races.

Canada long ago decided against the death penalty for these and other reasons. The compromise was to provide for a penalty of life imprisonment but with a period, potentially a very long period, during which the offender would not be eligible for parole. As matters now stand, Pickton will not be eligible for parole for 25 years.

What are the criteria for finding inadmissability of evidence?

Christopher Sherrin: There are many reasons why evidence may be held to be inadmissible, too many to list here. To give two examples, evidence may be too prejudicial or may have been obtained in breach of the accused’s Charter rights.

I feel very sorry for the jurors. I understand under Canadian law a jury cannot discuss a verdict, why? In this case these people have seen and heard the most grizzly detail of these horrific crimes and they can't even speak to professsional who would be bound by confidentiallity. It seems extremely unfair that thsee poor people have to keep all of this bottled up inside. How will it effect their lives and why can't an exeption be made in this kind of case?

Christopher Sherrin: Canadian law prohibits jurors from discussing their deliberations in order to provide jurors with a zone of privacy in which they can be free to express opinions, even unpopular opinions.

This prohibition, however, does not prevent a juror from discussing, in therapy, the evidence they heard or saw during the trial or their feelings about the evidence. It only applies to discussion of the jury deliberations.

- In this kind of case, what arguments could the defense use as a basis for an appeal of the verdict or the sentence.

Christopher Sherrin: Arguments on appeal are mostly based on alleged legal errors committed during a trial. I cannot say what arguments may be available to the defence in this case as I was not privy to all the legal rulings and decisions made during the trial. Some people have pointed to the fact that the trial judge changed his instructions to the jury late in the trial, expanding the potential basis of Pickton’s liability, but on its face the expansion seems uncontroversial.

Is is possible that the conviction of second degree murder as opposed to first degree murder may have been to lessen the options of appeal by the defence?

Christopher Sherrin: Highly unlikely. Conviction for the lesser offence would only diminish Pickton’s options on appeal to the extent that it deprives him of the chance to argue that conviction for the greater offence was unreasonable. But if the jury thought that conviction for the greater offence was so problematic that it might be considered unreasonable then they were duty bound to acquit him of that offence irrespective of any potential impact on an appeal. In any event, the jurors would most probably not have understood what options for appeal would be available to Pickton so they would have been unlikely to think they could structure their verdict with a view to narrowing those options.

Will Pickton serve concurrent sentences or consecutive sentences?

Christopher Sherrin: He will serve concurrent sentences. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and Canada does not pass sentences longer than life. The judge also imposed a period of parole ineligibility (i.e. a period of time before he can apply for parole) for each sentence of life imprisonment, but the periods are not cumulative. They took into account, however, the fact that Pickton was convicted of multiple murders.