Stunning finish to murder trial

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 03/02/2012 (4983 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Two men are charged with first-degree murder in the slaying of three people in a farmhouse near St. Leon.

A third man pleads guilty to the same three slayings after making a deal with the Crown for a reduced charge and less time before parole.

A trial is held and the Crown’s star witness points the finger of blame at the two men.

But after nine hours of deliberation, a Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench jury convicts one man and sets another free.

Today, Jérôme Labossière is serving a life sentence in prison for ordering the slaying of his parents, Fernand, 78, Rita, 74, and his brother Rémi, 44, on Nov. 26, 2005.

As well, Jeremie Toupin, the Crown’s witness, sits in a jail cell awaiting sentencing for second-degree murder and the Crown’s agreement to recommend his parole eligibility be reduced to 10 years.

But many are questioning why Labossière’s co-accused, Michael Hince, is a free man after being acquitted and how unusual this scenario is.

It’s probably no surprise Evan Roitenberg, Hince’s lawyer, has no problem with the verdict by the jury for his client.

“He is breathing a sigh of relief,” Roitenberg said.

“But people have to remember that a jury is entitled to believe some, none or all of what they hear… they looked at the testimony and all the lies he was caught in; they put it all into the mix to reach their ruling.”

Roitenberg said it would be one thing if it was all the same evidence, but it wasn’t. He said juries are told that when there are multiple defendants, they have to only use the evidence that pertains to each for their decision.

“The reason they have different lawyers is they have different issues and were questioning it in different ways,” the lawyer said.

“If it was all the same, everyone would have the same lawyer… the judge told the jury to look for confirmatory evidence on each.

“They came to the right verdict in my client’s case.”

With Hince, Roitenberg said, the jury would have believed Toupin lied about Hince’s involvement and didn’t believe he would have been able to join Toupin in the slayings, the torching of the farmhouse, the disposal of weapons into the Red River and likely the keys to the vehicle they were in, the flagging down a passing motorist, having his brother pick the pair up in the rural area and drive them back into Winnipeg, meet with Labossière, and dispose of his clothing — all between the hours of 4:30 a.m. at the earliest, when a windmill employee said he didn’t see the farmhouse on fire, to 8:30 a.m., when a tow truck driver picked up Hince at a residence so he could pick up the vehicle left behind.

David Deutscher, a law professor at the University of Manitoba, said it’s not unusual in Canadian courts for juries to come up with differing verdicts for accused in the same case.

“It all depends on the evidence,” Deutscher said.

“You can have jointly charged accused and one or more are acquitted and one or more are convicted. The problem is, nobody is in the jury room but the jurors.

“The jury has the absolute right to accept some, none or all of the evidence. They can believe Toupin what he said about Labossière, but arguments made by Hince’s lawyer provided the basis to the jury why he might lie about him.”

So, why didn’t the Free Press interview jurors and ask them why they convicted Labossière and acquitted Hince? In Canada, it’s a criminal offence to publish interviews with jurors.

Deutscher said “there’s no such thing in Canadian law as an unreasonable acquittal.”

“The jury has the right to decide in our system that this person shouldn’t have been prosecuted.”

Deutscher said another big question mark at this point is what evidence the Crown and police actually had against Toupin, which may have been part of the reason Toupin agreed to testify, yet still end up in prison.

And because the jury came up with its decision on the facts, it’s now a big mountain to climb if the Crown decides to appeal the acquittal.

David Asper, one of the lawyers who helped in David Milgaard’s wrongful conviction case and who now teaches at the University of Manitoba, said one problem is many critics of the decision are only believing the story detailed by the Crown’s key witness “at face value, when there were apparently parts of his story that don’t add up.”

“The Crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt they did what they were charged with doing. And when the jury assessed the evidence to see if the Crown had met that standard of proof, apparently the jury said no for Hince.”

Asper said Hince’s lawyer, similar to the tactic taken with Milgaard’s wrongful conviction case, pointed out the timeline for his client in the crime didn’t make sense and the jury must have accepted that.

“In Milgaard, the evidence seemed on its face to make sense, but when we reconstructed it, it didn’t make sense,” he said.

“Better to have it done at this stage than later on trying to unravel a mistrial.

“You have to assume they believed there was enough evidence to convict Labossière and not enough to convict Hince.

“And it also shows once again there are risks with informants… I’ll tell you, this case was the topic of discussion with law students today.”

kevin.rollason@freepress.mb.ca