Judge offers jury three choices

The jury in the Gerald Stanley second-degree murder trial has begun its deliberations.

In his charge to the jury, Chief Justice Martel Popescul included instruction on the difference between manslaughter and murder and gave them three options: not guilty, not guilty of second degree murder but guilty of manslaughter, and guilty of second degree murder.

Both defence lawyer Scott Spencer and Crown prosecutor Bill Burge made their final arguments to the jury in the morning at Queen’s Bench Court.

Spencer began his closing remarks by joking that “the good news is this is probably the last time you’ll hear from me.”  

“The rest of it is bad. This whole situation is bad, and sad, so sad.”

He began by pointing to the expert testimony. With respect to the Tokarev pistol, Spencer noted blood on the trigger, consistent with evidence that Stanley’s finger was not on the trigger when Colten Boushie was shot.

With respect to the Crown’s witnesses from the grey Ford Escape, Spencer was scathing.

“Belinda Jackson is not telling the truth,” he said. Two shots in the passenger side is not true, he said.

As for the other witnesses Spencer said “they were going around checking vehicles,” which “is code for trying to steal.”

Spencer blasted the witnesses for not telling the truth.

“For something so serious, why not tell the truth?” Spencer asked about the Ford Escape witnesses.

“What’s frustrating for me ... is they’re still not telling the truth.”

Spencer then zeroed in on the .22 rifle and on the witnesses’ claims that it wasn’t loaded, when it was. He noted the loaded rifle was being used to break into the red truck.

Spencer also debunked their claim that it was the Stanleys who had loaded it. “Not telling the truth.”

With respect to their activities at the Fouhy farm, Spencer noted the only reason they didn’t steal Murray’s truck was because they didn’t know how to drive a vehicle with a standard transmission.

He also pointed out that Cassidy Cross, driving the Ford Escape, had driven by a spare tire that could have been used for the wheel on the grey Escape.

“Cassidy seemed quite taken aback that I suggested he borrow a spare tire in an emergency situation,” said Spencer.

Spencer then dealt with the quad, which he noted was Stanley’s first concern. “And then the rollercoaster starts,” Spencer said. Gerry said it “didn’t seem right.”

“Put yourself in Gerry’s boots and walk along with me that day,” Spencer said to the jury.

He noted the situation transpired over a short period of time. “This is all less than two minutes.”

Spencer talked about the attempt to fire up the quad.

“That’s the audacity, that’s the danger Gerry faced,” said Spencer. They were “stealing under their nose in broad daylight.”

Spencer noted the rollercoaster seemed to taper off when it looked like the group was leaving.

“Thank God, good riddance, they’re gone,” Spencer said of the Stanley reaction, but then the grey Escape hit the blue Escape. Spencer described it as an intentional crashing.

“That roller coaster is going up like crazy,” said Spencer.

Spencer also noted that Stanley didn’t have the luxury to call 911 and wait for police to show up. He mentioned the struggles the Stanleys had of calling 911 and just getting through to Biggar RCMP, and that they couldn’t even find the farm once called.

He pointed to the actions of Stanley as something you would “reasonably expect in the circumstances.” He noted there were warning shots, and noted the gun wasn’t in firing position,

He describes Stanley seeing the lawnmower and thinking, “Where’s my wife? Where’s my wife?

"Whatever’s happened before, that’s not as bad as “thinking your wife’s under a vehicle.” Spencer also went over the frantic moments of reaching into the vehicle for the car keys, when the gun fired.

On the murder charge, Spencer said the Crown has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the discharge was intentional.

Spencer made the argument there was no intention, and no evidence the gun was pointed.

The only evidence on murder came from Belinda Jackson, Spencer noted, but he noted she never saw anything and didn’t see any shots. She thought Boushie had been shot from outside the vehicle. Spencer called her testimony a “made up story” - “dangerous, malicious evidence” disproved by the autopsy report.

The bottom line, Spencer said to the jury, was that Stanley was “in a nightmare situation” and he had no intention of hurting anyone.

The Crown has an obligation to prove their theory, he said.

“They have to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt.”

They didn’t even come close to that, Spencer said.

“It’s not criminal. It’s a tragedy. But it’s not criminal. You must acquit.” Spencer said.

“Based on the evidence in this courtroom, you must acquit.”

In closing arguments for the prosecution, Bill Burge said it was a highly charged situation at the Stanley ranch, and acknowledged the contradictory testimony from Jackson.

But in his remarks Burge spent a great deal of time painting Stanley as irresponsible, and even not telling the truth on the stand.

On the murder charge, the theory was that Stanley intentionally pulled the trigger.

If the jury accepted that, “I would suggest it would be easy for you to make the finding he intended to cause his death.”

There is another offence available, Burge noted, and that is manslaughter based on his careless use of the handgun.

Burge noted Stanley didn’t know how much ammunition he loaded into the gun, didn’t keep track of what was in the magazine and didn’t know how many times he pulled the trigger.

“He didn’t even know what the safety mechanisms were on his own gun,” said Burge.

He submitted to the jury that this was a “highly dangerous situation” and it existed “because of the carelessness of Gerald Stanley.”

Burge also went over the things known “for sure” about the case:

- The Tokarev requires “a distinct pull each time” and it was not subject to an accidental discharge.

- The cartridge in question on the dash of the vehicle was bulged. That was significant to the firearms expert Greg Williams, said Burge, who “brought that to the attention of all of us.”

- The cause of death was a gunshot to the head, the path of the bullet was the left side of the head, downward, slightly forward, left to right.

- There was only one wound, one significant injury.

Burge also went over in detail the evidence concerning the gun. He noted the Tokarev didn’t have the safety feature of a magazine disconnect.

Regarding Williams’ testimony, Burge noted he testified that it wasn’t subject to an accidental discharge; he noted all three expended cartridges were fired including the bulged one.

Regarding the bulged cartridge, Burge revisited Williams’ testimony.  There were certain ways a cartridge could be deformed, the firearms experted had testified. There were several possible reasons for it, but one reason why a cartridge is deformed is because it’s out of battery, it wasn’t fully supported in the charge of the gun when it was discharged.

Burge then went to work dismissing the theory of a hang fire.

“That alone would not cause the bulged casing, because the cartridge would be squarely in the chamber,” Burge said.

He noted hang fires are extremely rare. Sandy Ervin, the defence’s witness, Burge noted, said he too had never seen it.

“It’s a very rare circumstance,” said Burge.

Burge then zeroed in on Stanley’s testimony with respect to the gun, calling his evidence “demonstrably untrue.”

“His story is, in my opinion, searching for a reason for you to think this is a hang fire,” Burge said.

“There couldn’t have been a hang fire because there couldn’t have been a fire.”

Burge then went to work on Sheldon Stanley’s testimony that he saw his father “walking,” not running, up to the grey Escape.

“Sheldon Stanley isn’t describing a circumstance where he ran to the door,” said Burge.

Burge also noted the testimony of Eric Meechance, who testified that when he ran away he cut through the hedge, went into the yard and saw a woman on a lawnmower.

Meechance “had no reason to lie about a woman on a lawnmower.” Burge’s point was that the lawnmower was nowhere near the Ford Escape.

“I want you to think about these very important pieces of information,” said Burg. “Was Gerald Stanley telling us the truth when he was so concerned about his wife being under the car?”

Burge closed his case by painting Stanley as dishonest on the stand and reckless in his actions.

“Gerald Stanley took no precautions and was exceedingly reckless,” said Burge.

Immediately after Burge’s remarks a lunch break was called. The charge to the jury took place in the afternoon after which time jury deliberations began. 

Stay with the News-Optimist for continuing updates on the Stanley trial.