The change in colour of the background behind the text is merely an anomaly and nothing else.
The right to remain silent is a legal right that is recognized, explicitly
or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems. The right covers a
number of issues centered on the right of the suspect to refuse to comment or
provide an answer when questioned, either by the police or during legal
proceedings in a court of law. This is the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to remain silent when
questioned. The right usually includes the provision that adverse comments or
inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury regarding the refusal by a defendant to answer questions before or during a
trial, hearing or any other legal proceeding. This right constitutes only a
small part of the defendant's rights as a whole.
I do remember one case I
was watching in which the judge did make a comment about the accused not giving
evidence. The trial was by judge alone. He said in part in his decision and I
will paraphrase him.
“I have heard the
testimony of the witnesses who testified against the accused. The accused exercised
his right to remain silent during his trial. That is most unfortunate because I
would like to have heard his rebuttal if there was one. He left me with the
problem of making a decision based entirely on what evidence was given to me by
the Crown’s (prosecutor’s) witnesses.”
He then convicted the
man. The judge did not err in making that statement. He would have erred had he
made it in front of the man’s jury if he had a jury which he did not because
the jury might have believed that he was guilty since he didn’t want to take
the stand and be cross examined by the prosecution. Normally when an accused
doesn’t give evidence at his jury trial, the judge will tell the jury that the
accused has the right to remain silent and that they should not interpret his
silence as a sign of guilt.
In Canada, the right to silence is
protected under section 7 and section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The accused
may not be compelled as a witness against himself in criminal proceedings, and therefore only voluntary statements made to police are admissible as evidence. Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to
police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence.
After being informed of the right to counsel, if the accused chooses to
voluntarily answer questions, then his statements would be admissible in court.
There is no law that
prohibits the police from questioning a suspect in the absence of counsel after
he has retained counsel. Police persuasion, short of denying the suspect
the right to choose or of depriving him of an
operating mind, does not breach the right to silence.
The violation of the suspect's rights occurs
only when the Crown (prosecutor) acts to subvert the suspect's constitutional right to choose not to make a statement to the authorities.
Even
where a violation of the suspect's right is
established, the evidence may, where appropriate, be admitted. Only if the
court is satisfied that its reception would be likely to bring the administration of justice
into disrepute can the evidence be rejected under section 24(2) of the Charter. Where the police have acted with due care for the suspect's rights,
it is unlikely that the statements they obtain will be held inadmissible.
I remember watching a
trial in 1962 where the accused stated that he was beaten by the police to get
him to confess. The judge said in reply, “No doubt you deserved it.” Then he
convicted the accused on the basis of his confession. Those days are now long
gone fortunately.
Any
evidence obtained in breach of the suspect’s right under section 7 is excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter. Sometimes the
exclusion of the confession would result in an acquittal, since virtually the
only evidence against the accused was his confession to the police.
Although an accused has
the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to testify against himself,
if he freely chooses to take the witness box and testify, there is no further right to silence and
no general restriction on what kinds of questions they may be required to
answer. Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees
that witnesses may not have any incriminating evidence they gave as testimony
used against them in separate proceedings. In effect, a person can be compelled
to give involuntary self-incriminating evidence but only where that evidence is
to be used against a third party.
As an example, the
accused is testifying against another man who was also party to the crime he is
suspected of having committed. He can admit that he was present when the other
man shot the victim to death and that he did nothing to stop the shooting. He
cannot be convicted at his own trial for that admission he gave at the other
person’s trial by having his actual statement read to him during his own trial.
The prosecutor would have to have present to the jury other evidence in order
to convict him.
The right to remain silent,
which is designed to shield
an accused from the unequal power of the prosecution, arises when the coercive
power of the state is brought to bear
against the individual, either formally (by arrest or charge) or informally (by
detention or accusation). It is at this point that an adversary
relationship comes to exist
between the state and the individual.
I have prefaced this post with the aforementioned so
that you will appreciate what I am speaking about while referring to
particulars of a very interesting criminal trial that I wrote about and
published in my blog on May 14, 2012. It is titled, Was the judge in the child murder case right to order that some evidence
should not be presented to the jury?
That post was about a man and woman who were charged
and convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering an eight-year old girl. They
were both sentenced to life in prison.
The woman, Terri-Lynn McClintic confessed to the
police that it was man (Michael Rafferty) who murdered the little girl but she later pleaded guilty in
court at her own trial to being present during the murder of the girl and that she did nothing to stop Rafferty from murdering her. She also testified at the trial of the co-accused,
Michael Rafterty who denied everything he was accused of when questioned by the
police and who chose not to testify on his own behalf during his trial.
In this post, I will explain the significance of their
decisions to testify and not to testify.
At Rafferty’s trial, McClintic did a complete turn
around. Previous to her trial, when she was arrested by the police, she told
the police that Rafferty was the one who beat the little girl to death. She was
sentenced to life in prison at the end of her trial after she pleaded guilty to
kidnapping, sexual assault and death of the little girl. Months later when she
was called as a witness at Rafferty’s trial, she testified under oath that it
was she who beat the little girl to death and not Rafferty.
She had nothing to lose by testifying against herself
during Rafferty’s trial since she had already been sentenced to life in prison
for her role in the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of the little girl.
It is obviously against an accused’s best interest to
confess to the police about his or her wrongdoing but in McClintic’s case, she
knew that the police had evidence that she had kidnapped the girl and had
bought the hammer that was used to kill her and the garbage bags to place her
body in because of videos that were showing her walking with the girl on the
street and her purchasing the aforementioned items.
She could have denied that it was her that was shown
in the videos as the pictures weren’t really that clear enough but in her mind,
she felt that the police had sufficient evidence to charge her. During her
trial, she pleaded guilty to the three crimes she was charged with. I can only
presume that her lawyer told her that that was the only option to her since she
had already confessed to the crimes.
Now there are times when accused persons during their
trials will confess to their crimes because of a deal made between them or
their lawyer and the prosecution or alternatively, when the crime isn’t too
serious, In the latter instances, the judge will reduce the prison time to be
served because the accused has made it possible that the victim doesn’t have to
testify and also because the trial won’t waste a lot of the court’s time.
However in McClintic’s case, that largesse that
normally would be offered by the judge for pleading guilty wasn’t given to her
because the penalty for first degree murder is automatically life in prison
with the possibility of parole after having served a minimum of 25 years in
prison.
So why then was she so willing to confess to the
crimes she was charged with knowing that she would be sent to prison for a
minimum of 25 years? I don’t have an answer to that question since I don’t know
what was going on in her mind during the interrogation by the police.
Did she put the blame on Rafferty, her former lover
for the murder and rape of the little girl out of revenge? The rumour mill in Woodstock , Ontario
where they both lived then was that McClintic had heard while she was at the
detention centre because of another matter, that Rafferty was dating many women
and sleeping with them. The rumour was true. He had sex with at least twelve of
them. Needless to say, this would have infuriated McClintic.
Another theory is that after
Rafferty was first interviewed by police on the evening of May 15, 2009 about
another matter, he called her up at the Genest Detention Centre and told her
that he wouldn’t be visiting or phoning her for a while. Again, that was before she was interrogated on May 19th by the police about Tori’s murder.
During the May 19th,
police interview, McClintic first claimed to know nothing about the
murder of the girl but eventually she confessed saying that she kidnapped the
girl and that Rafferty assisted with the kidnapping (he had the car) and that
he raped and then beat the girl to death.
On May 20th,
the police charged Michael Thomas Rafferty, 28, with first degree murder sexual assault causing bodily harm and kidnapping and Terri-Lynne McClintic, with being an accessory to murder of the little
girl in addition to the abduction
(kidnapping).
At McClintic’s
interrogation, did she really want to come clean, or was her accusation against
her former lover the wrath of a woman scorned? And three years later, what made
her turn around and state at Rafferty’s trial that it was she and not Rafferty who
stomped and bludgeoned the little girl to death? Was she just trying to confuse
the jury? Was she afraid that her fellow prisoners would treat her as a rat for
testifying against Rafferty? None of that was the initial reason.
Days after the murder of the eight-year-old,
Terri-Lynne McClintic promised her lover, Rafferty who was later on trial for
the little girl's death, that if they were caught, she would save him by
admitting to killing the Ontario
schoolgirl alone. She told Rafferty’s jury three years later. “I said I would
take the fall for everything. I would say that it was all me. (I told him) that
he had more to lose than I did, that he had a life, a job, there was more for
him and I was just —I really had nothing.” unquote
Her statement in
Rafferty’s trial probably explains why Rafferty’s lawyer might have felt that
it wouldn’t be a smart thing for his client to take the stand since McClintic
had admitted under oath that she had previously told Rafferty that she would
take the blame for the murder of the little girl when in fact she had told the
police that it was he who committed the murder.
The lawyer would know however
that the evidence against Raffery was really quite damming with respect to the
kidnapping of the girl and the raping of her and perhaps even killing her. To
him, it might have been pointless for Rafferty to take the stand and to say
under oath that he wasn’t involved with the kidnapping and that he didn’t rape
her or kill her.
The dried blood found in the vehicle of
Michael Rafferty, who was accused of killing and sexually assaulting Victoria
Stafford, almost certainly came from the eight-year-old girl. Experts from the
Centre of Forensic Sciences, (where I studied forensic sciences for a school year
as part of the four years I studied criminology at the University
of Toronto ) tested several items
seized from Rafferty's home and car and later testified before London , Ontario
court trial of Rafferty.
Forensic biologist Jennifer McLean said
the sample collected from the rear passenger door moulding of Rafferty's 2003
Honda Civic was compared to a DNA profile created for the little victim from
her parents' DNA, one of the girl’s teeth and her hair from a comb found at her
home. The DNA in the stain matched the girl's profile, testified McLean , adding that the probability that the blood was
not Tori's was one in 150 trillion. McLean further also testified that a mixture of blood and semen was found on
the back of the front passenger seat. A DNA sample wasn’t taken from Rafferty
because he wasn’t required to give it because he (like everyone else) doesn’t
have to self-incriminate himself with the exception of being charged with
driving while the ability to drive is impaired.
McClintic
testified that Rafferty had instructed her to cut out a portion of his back
seat and throw it out the window as the two drove back to Woodstock on Highway 401 after hiding the
eight-year-old's body under some rocks. The portion cut from the back seat was
never seen again.
McClintic previously
testified that she had covered the little victim who was lying on the floor of
the back seat of Rafferty’s car with a black pea coat while she was being
driven to where she was raped and murdered so the girl would be hidden from
view. A coat matching the description she gave was found in Rafferty's house,
and testing revealed the presence of two blond hairs. The victim’s hair was
blond.
Barbara
Doupe, a hair and fibre expert with the Centre of Forensic Sciences said a
piece of fabric was found in Rafferty's Honda Civic and it appeared to have
been cut with a knife. This meant that McClintic was telling the truth when she
was interrogated by the police.
After McClintic testified in Rafferty’s
trial and said that it was she who committed the murder and not him, I thought
that was odd considering that she said that it was she who killed the girl and
not his client. But what was also odd was that after Rafferty’s lawyer heard
her testimony, he said during his closing argument that McClintic was a liar.
With all of that other damming evidence
being presented to the jury by the prosecutor about Rafferty’s role in the
murder of the little girl, trying to rebut it would be a pointless exercise.
This is why Rafferty didn’t take the stand
and deny that he had committed the three crimes he was charged with. If he had
denied participating in the kidnapping and then raping and also killing the
little girl, he would have come across as a bumbling liar.
He was what has been said of others—caught
between a rock and a hard place. He had no wiggle room in which he could
extricate himself whether he testified or not.
We will never know for sure how the jury
came to the conclusion that Rafferty was the person who killed the little girl
because in Canada ,
jury deliberations cannot be made public.
It is conceivable that they might have
felt that no matter who actually stomped and struck the victim with the hammer
and killed her, both of them were guilty of murder. Perhaps they both took
turns killing her. But if only one of them killed her, then the other didn’t.
However, if one of them killed her and the other did nothing to stop that
person from murdering the girl, then in my opinion, they are both guilty. Perhaps
they both decided that the girl had to be killed so that she wouldn’t tell the
police that they both kidnapped her. Perhaps that is what the jury thought
also. Whatever decision they made and how they arrived at it, they were legally
right to conclude that although McClintic told them that she killed the little
girl— Rafferty was just as guilty of first degree murder as McClintic was.
That wasn’t the first time more than one
person was convicted of first degree murder when in fact only one person was
directly involved in the murder. Tooba Yahya,
42, her husband Mohammad Shafia, 58, and their eldest son, Hamed, 20, were
found guilty of four counts of first-degree murder when in fact it was
Hamed Shafia who with his car, pushed
the other car with the four family members inside, into the water where they
drowned. The three of them were convicted equally for the deaths.
What happened to that
little girl was a terrible thing. No one should be submitted to that kind of abuse.
Although it is possible that both of these monsters will apply for early
release after having served the first 15 years in prison, it is highly unlikely
that a second jury will grant them their release. In fact it is highly probable
in my mind that they will serve even more than the minimum of 25 years in
prison.
However, they are
entitled to time served while in custody before their trials. That means that
McClintic will be eligible to apply for parole after serving 24 years. She will
be 43 years of age. Rafferty was in custody three years
before his trial so with time served while in custody, he will be eligible to
apply for parole after serving 22 years in prison. He will be 50 years old.
Unfortunately I will
never see the day they are released because I will be 102 years of age when
McClintic is eligible to apply for parole and 100 years of age when Rafferty is
eligible to apply for parole. Not in my wildest dreams do I expect to live that
long. Hopefully I hope they don’t either.
What I do know is that
these two human monsters are going to live a very miserable life while they are
in prison because inmates and staff alike are not very kind to child killers. Both
will probably be placed in protective custody and in all likelihood that will mean that they will be in their cells twenty-four hours a day and the hour they are
outside their cells, they will be alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment