[Hank]

Why did the police not give Bryant a breathalyzer?

Why was Bryant's bail hearing waived?

The video shows the cyclist put his bike down in front of Bryant's car. Why did Bryant think he could just leave the scene? You get out. You call the cops. There's no way he was in mortal danger.

Do we know that the police didn't give him a breathalyzer? I'd be shocked if they didn't.

Also (as mentioned above), the only reason not to grant someone bail would be if you thought they were a flight risk; there's no chance that someone of Bryant's notoriety and roots in the community is going to drop everything and hightail it to Switzerland. A bail hearing would have been a waste of time.

It's not clear what happened at the original confrontation, but I think it's a stretch to say that Bryant 'left the scene'. At that point nobody had been hurt and I doubt there was any damage to either the car or the bike; if I was in such a situation and I felt threatened by the cyclist then I'd try to drive away too. You don't have to be in 'mortal danger' to want to get out of there in a situation like that.

 

[AGTO]

It's not clear what happened at the original confrontation,

Ask Lordmandeep, he seems to know.

 

[UD2]

I'm not sure who these people are that you're talking to, but they're clearly not lawyers. You aren't necessarily allowed to beat someone senseless not are you restricted to just calling the police.

Self-defence is a somewhat murky area, but the general idea is that you're allowed to use the amount of force that is necessary in the situation. You can use deadly force, but only if the situation warrants it. Did this situation warrant Bryant's use of deadly force (and I think most people would recognize that smashing someone into a mailbox at high speeds can potentially be deadly)? I don't know...we'll have to wait until the facts come out.

i agree with Hank on this one.

However I have to add that in this case it rests with the crown to prove that the Cyclist did not act in a way what would've warrented Bryant's actions, rather than the otherway around. If the prosecution cannot prove, beyond reasonable doublt, that the cyclist did not act in a way that would've warranted, or lead to, Bryant's overreaction then the charges against Bryant would be dropped and he'll most likely be issued a ticket for dangerous driving.

Once again, this could be a rather difficult case for the crown to argue. Probably much more difficult than many people would assume.

 

[UD2]

Some have said that witnesses are quite unreliable...


So I am wondering what happens in court when each side has witnesses telling different stories, how do they resolve that. Does the Jury just believe who they think is the least wrong or is the evidence thrown out???

Thus the point is what other evidence apart from witnesses do you think will be used??

If each witness tell a different story and the whole thing ends up being a complete blur even when both party rests, then there will be a likely chance fo the jury to find reasonable doublt in the prosecution's claim and therefore, grant the defendent a verdict of not guilty.


When there is a murky story, it is almost always good for the defendant. Remember that it is the prosecution that have to prove, beyond reasonable doublt, that the defence is guilty and not the other way around.

 

[christiesplits]

Do we know that the police didn't give him a breathalyzer? I'd be shocked if they didn't.

The Toronto Star retraced their footsteps earlier in their evening, and the bills they footed at the College Street and Danforth eating establishments they visited did not include any booze.

 

[confusion]

Come on! Being the former AG he knows the Law inside out and how he can use it for himself.

Its not the fact he is special politician, its because he knows the law and how he can use it and this may seem he is getting special treatment. QUOTE]

Exactly, and regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty, Bryant deserves intense scrutiny and all the power of the law put towards him, because he knows how to fight back. Justice needs to be served where justice is due.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Also (as mentioned above), the only reason not to grant someone bail would be if you thought they were a flight risk; there's no chance that someone of Bryant's notoriety and roots in the community is going to drop everything and hightail it to Switzerland. A bail hearing would have been a waste of time.

Lawyer Joseph Neuberger, who handles many motor vehicle cases, said he did not find Bryant's treatment unreasonable, although it may have been unusual considering there was a death in the case.

On his release from a police station, he said, "No doubt, who he is and what position he had in the community played a factor. He is a former attorney-general, member of the provincial legislature. He's a lawyer. He's well-respected, a contributing member of the community. I'm sure that was a factor. I don't think that's a bad thing."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/690308

Bryant has reportedly commissioned a parallel investigation of the events, including his own forensics team, some officers have been told.

Michael Bryant will use his power, influence and wealth to beat this case. It's always the same story, and is a weakness inherent to our legal system.

 

[UD2]

In a hit-and-run or a accident with minor injuries perhaps. But in a potential murder investigation, they are normally very thorough.

It doesn't seem they are giving him special treatment ... they quickly charged him with some very serious career-ending charges ... that many here qre questioning. I've known of people who have been charged and released without a court appearance ... I'm not seeing any evidence of favourtism. I wonder if they'd have actually laid the charges they did, had they not been well aware that there would be huge media scrutiny.

I agree.

If they win, they get a pad on the back for watching out for the common. If the lose, they can simply say, hey, we've tried.


Personally, since my first post on this topic, I have found that the charges laid against him were a bit on the stiff side.

I still find dangerous driving causing bodily harm to be a more sensible charge.

Now that being said, because of the severity of the charges laid and the difficulty that I think the crown will have in proving this case, the two very serious charges could end up also work to Bryant's benefit. In that, if they can't prove that he's responsible for the death of the cyclist, then he gets to walk free without any further charges such as negligence or dangerous driving causing bodily harm. This is because double jeopardy does not allow for a person to be charged more than once for the same incident.

This makes me think that the police did ending up doing Bryant a favor. Because if you punch someone in the face and beat him/her to near death and the police come by and charge you for only first degree murder, you know you will be free because you won’t be convicted for first degree murder since the person did not actually die, but in the same time they can’t charge you for assault, battery and attempted murder because they had already charged you.

So did Bryant end of getting favor from his old buddies? That’s up to anybody’s guess.

 

[lordmandeep]

That is why they are getting a high profile outside prosecutor from BC.

If each witness tell a different story and the whole thing ends up being a complete blur even when both party rests, then there will be a likely chance fo the jury to find reasonable doublt in the prosecution's claim and therefore, grant the defendent a verdict of not guilty.


When there is a murky story, it is almost always good for the defendant. Remember that it is the prosecution that have to prove, beyond reasonable doublt, that the defence is guilty and not the other way around.

So I would imagine the defense will likely bring in a ton of witnesses to conflict any witnesses the prosecution has just to make everything seem unclear. Thus the Jury cannot say that Bryant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Looking at the surface, you think Bryant is finished, but looking at it this is going to be difficult for the crown.

Bryant has reportedly commissioned a parallel investigation of the events, including his own forensics team, some officers have been told.
Michael Bryant will use his power, influence and wealth to beat this case. It's always the same story, and is a weakness inherent to our legal system.

It is a weakness but I don't believe in such silly things that people should be limited to how much they can spend or what they can do to defend themselves. Trust me when you are facing such charges you would bankrupt yourself to clear your name. You would do everything you think of, and if you were an AG and you were charged with a crime, I would imagine (even if you think its unethical) that you would use your position to your advantage.

Also it appears the so called disadvantage youth who go around shooting people in the city somehow get pretty good smart lawyers who do a good job of convincing the judge to grant lower sentences.

Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General has retained Vancouver criminal lawyer Richard Peck as independent counsel to prosecute the case, said ministry spokesman Brendan Crawley.

Peck served as lead counsel for accused Air India bomber Ajaib Singh Bagri, who was acquitted in 2005, and defended John Robin Sharpe in a landmark case that challenged parts of Canada's child pornography laws

Look like Bryant will be facing some tough competition. Its a heavyweight criminal court challenge!!!

I was wondering if there is any evidence to suggest that lawyers who face crimes have a higher rate of acquittal then everyone else?

 

[Hank]

Michael Bryant will use his power, influence and wealth to beat this case. It's always the same story, and is a weakness inherent to our legal system.

That quote you included supports what I was saying. Given Bryant's position in the community, there's no reason not to give him bail because there's no reason to think that he'll leave town. Would someone like Sheppard be less likely to get bail if the situation was reversed? Sure. But it's not because he's not as rich or powerful as Bryant, it's because he's far more likely to flee the jurisdiction while out on bail. That's not a weakness of our legal system, it's the way it should work.

 

[Whoaccio]

So where could Sheppard have hung onto? I thought the Saab 9-3 had rollbars which would be logical grab on points, but it seems that the convertible has no obvious grab on points on the right side of the car.

 

[lordmandeep]

That means likely he was grabbing on to the windshield right beside Bryant.

 

[Roy G Biv]

That quote you included supports what I was saying. Given Bryant's position in the community, there's no reason not to give him bail because there's no reason to think that he'll leave town. Would someone like Sheppard be less likely to get bail if the situation was reversed? Sure. But it's not because he's not as rich or powerful as Bryant, it's because he's far more likely to flee the jurisdiction while out on bail. That's not a weakness of our legal system, it's the way it should work.

I didn't say he should be in jail right now. You don't think he should have had to at least post-bail? From my understanding, he didn't even go to court, but was allowed to leave the police station.

 

[Glen]

So where could Sheppard have hung onto? I thought the Saab 9-3 had rollbars which would be logical grab on points, but it seems that the convertible has no obvious grab on points on the right side of the car.

Perhaps the guide for the shoulder belt (attached to the upper part of the seat)?

 

[simply Dan]

An account has been set up at TD Canada Trust to accept donations on behalf of Darcy Allan Sheppard to assist with funeral expenses. Any TD Canada Trust branch can be visited to inquire for details.