A man who admits he ran down a Muslim family said he did so because he believed anti-Muslim conspiracies he found on fringe websites like Alex Jones’ Infowars.
I understand it is important, and I’m certainly not criticizing anyone. I was just surprised because that is a very long time to have someone on the stand. Does Canada have protections from self-incrimination? I can’t imagine that the defense attorney would be very happy about it.
Lawyer here. Canada also has protections against self-incrimination and it is the same in principle as the US. In many cases where the defendant does not testify the defence strategy is poking holes in the prosecutor’s case, essentially that they have not met the burden of proof.
Keep in mind I haven’t really been following this case, just read snippets in the news. I’m guessing the prosecutor’s case is pretty solid on its own for first degree murder convictions. His lawyer determined the best way they can counter such a strong case is for him to testify. The defence strategy is probably to get a lesser conviction (second degree murder or manslaughter instead of first degree murder) or to get an NCRMD (not criminally responsible due to mental disorder). NCRMD is the “insanity defence”. His testimony about alt-right content will probably be part of his evidence to argue NCRMD.
A finding of NCRMD is neither a conviction nor acquittal. The person will be sent to a psychiatric hospital for however long until they deem him to be safe for release into the public, probably with supervision.
I understand it is important, and I’m certainly not criticizing anyone. I was just surprised because that is a very long time to have someone on the stand. Does Canada have protections from self-incrimination? I can’t imagine that the defense attorney would be very happy about it.
Lawyer here. Canada also has protections against self-incrimination and it is the same in principle as the US. In many cases where the defendant does not testify the defence strategy is poking holes in the prosecutor’s case, essentially that they have not met the burden of proof.
Keep in mind I haven’t really been following this case, just read snippets in the news. I’m guessing the prosecutor’s case is pretty solid on its own for first degree murder convictions. His lawyer determined the best way they can counter such a strong case is for him to testify. The defence strategy is probably to get a lesser conviction (second degree murder or manslaughter instead of first degree murder) or to get an NCRMD (not criminally responsible due to mental disorder). NCRMD is the “insanity defence”. His testimony about alt-right content will probably be part of his evidence to argue NCRMD.
A finding of NCRMD is neither a conviction nor acquittal. The person will be sent to a psychiatric hospital for however long until they deem him to be safe for release into the public, probably with supervision.
Thank you very much for the explanation.