Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 8/3/2014 (905 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
As one might expect in a first-degree murder case, there was a lot more going on under the hood than surfaced at the trial proper in front of the jury.
The trial of Corey Tymchyshyn and Kristopher Brincheski for the Feb. 6, 2008 killing of Chad Davis was no different in this respect.
Over the coming weeks, in dribs and drabs as time allows, I'll be presenting a series of posts related to pre-trial issues and other evidence that came up over the many years this case took to investigate and get to a hearing.
By now, it's not news to anyone that the two accused were convicted of the charge and have begun serving their life sentences without a chance at parole for 25 years [or 15 if 'faint hope' is granted].
Appeals are widely expected, but have yet to be filed. It may well be that the decision, presented in full below, could form a major part of any appeal Tymchyshyn may file.
Followers of this blog will know that recaps of the Crown's fascinating circumstantial case were presented in full as much as was possible, and can be accessed here.
Today's post centres on a key 2011 pre-trial decision by Justice Brenda Keyser who, aside from the preliminary hearing in provincial court in 2010, appears to have held conduct of the case from the bail stage right through the trial.
Tymchyshyn moved to have his case severed from that of Brincheski's, largely on the grounds the statement of Alex Brincheski was deemed by him to be uber-prejudicial to him.
In the end, the Brincheski statement was edited at trial by the Crown to remove any comments he may have made relating to Tymchychyn.
Keyser's decision is a quick, but informative, read on the legal hoops needed to jump through in order to sever an accused from what the Crown says was really a conspiracy case where it was impossible to separate the two men's cases.
Note how Keyser signals the Crown was uncertain at this stage whether Alex Brincheski's statement would ever be heard by the jury at all. It wound up being a key factor in the case against Brincheski, by my reading.