darksabre Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) Prosecution couldn't prove its case. Not so sure what's screwed up about that. But how could prosecution not prove its case? Sure, O'Reilly and friend were't found with the truck, but man, if the witness was key to the whole thing then I have no idea what they were doing. Can the accused refuse examination? How does O'Reilly not end up admitting he was driving the truck? This is like Roadhouse, where everyone is just standing around at the end like "I didn't see nothin". Edited July 11, 2016 by d4rksabre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Prosecution couldn't prove their case in the OJ trial either. Was he guilty? Guess not, prosecution couldn't prove their case. If there is no case there is no verdict, in the eyes of the court. There is no "not guilty" or "guilty". OJ was acquitted. As such, he was not guilty either. What you perceive to be the case is not relevant from viewpoint of the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 But how could prosecution not prove its case? Sure, O'Reilly and friend were't found with the truck, but man, if the witness was key to the whole thing then I have no idea what they were doing. Can the accused refuse examination? How does O'Reilly not end up admitting he was driving the truck? I think that in Canada, just as in the US, the accused can refuse examination. I'm not sure, but I think they've got some equivalent of our 5th Amendment. So assuming that they do, there's no way to get him to admit he was driving the truck, because there's no way to ASK him whether he was driving the truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 I think that in Canada, just as in the US, the accused can refuse examination. I'm not sure, but I think they've got some equivalent of our 5th Amendment. So assuming that they do, there's no way to get him to admit he was driving the truck, because there's no way to ASK him whether he was driving the truck. You're probably right, I'm just amazed they couldn't prove it via a good line of questioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 You're probably right, I'm just amazed they couldn't prove it via a good line of questioning. I'm amazed that they took it to trial without a way to establish that he was driving the truck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racecitybills Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Does this mean we don't have to cut O'Reilly now? That's what the spastic Sabres/Bills fans were all predicting----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 I'm amazed that they took it to trial without a way to establish that he was driving the truck! Right? Discovery phase should have turned up enough evidence to prove the case clear as day. If they really had nothing to go on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Based on what GM TM said yesterday, there seems to be confidence that the matter will be resolved without significant punishment for ROR. Shoot. GM TM was even joking about how the delays were to ensure that the lawyers get paid. GMTM is pretty smart, innit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 I don't think Canadian law permits an accused to refuse to testify. Anyhoo. Case has been dropped. http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/sabres-ryan-oreilly-has-impaired-driving-case-dropped/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) I don't think Canadian law permits an accused to refuse to testify. Anyhoo. Case has been dropped. Here you go: Not exactly a treatise, but it's something: https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/rights-person-accused-crime Looks very similar to our law. Edited July 11, 2016 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Here you go: Not exactly a treatise, but it's something: https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/rights-person-accused-crime Looks very similar to our law. Huh. Interesting. I'd read some time ago that there is no corollary to the 5th in Canada. The rights must arise elsewhere. Maybe statutory? (Seems like the Canadian right arises more from a right to silence, as opposed to a right to avoid self-incrimination?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 My grandfather once rolled a Buick in the late 40s while drunk. He walked home, slept it off, and reported it stolen the next morning. This case is basically that. I don't understand why the took it to trial if all they had was a bad witness. Isn't it law school 101 that witnesses are usually crap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kas23 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 What you perceive to be the case is not relevant from viewpoint of the court. Really? And here I was thinking I was the official spokesperson of the Canadian judicial system... I guess I just have a low tolerance level for people who drink and drive and have the money/status to get away with it. I'm not sure of everyone else's background, but if it was my car that crashed into Tim Horton's, I'm pretty sure I would still be in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) Really? And here I was thinking I was the official spokesperson of the Canadian judicial system... I guess I just have a low tolerance level for people who drink and drive and have the money/status to get away with it. I'm not sure of everyone else's background, but if it was my car that crashed into Tim Horton's, I'm pretty sure I would still be in jail. Not if the prosecutor couldn't prove you were driving it...but your low tolerance level is understandable. Huh. Interesting. I'd read some time ago that there is no corollary to the 5th in Canada. The rights must arise elsewhere. Maybe statutory? (Seems like the Canadian right arises more from a right to silence, as opposed to a right to avoid self-incrimination?) I don't know. They never get far enough into the quasi-Miranda warning on Trailer Park Boys before they haul the guys off. Edited July 11, 2016 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kas23 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Right? Discovery phase should have turned up enough evidence to prove the case clear as day. If they really had nothing to go on.... Yep. It took prosecuting a year - when their witness was on the stand - to figure out she never saw ROR driving the trunk. That's almost believable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 What I don't get is how they can't just assume he was driving because he owns the vehicle and then put the onus on him to prove he wasn't. If I get one of those photographed tickets for running a red light they just send the ticket in the mail to me as the owner of the vehicle that matches the tags in the picture. In order to avoid the ticket I have prove that I wasn't driving it by sending in a police report to show it was reported stolen or by getting the person I loaned the car to confess and assume the ticket on their record. Doesn't this just encourage people to flee the scene? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 You're responsible to pay the ticket but you don't get points on your license, similar to a parking ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 What I don't get is how they can't just assume he was driving because he owns the vehicle and then put the onus on him to prove he wasn't. If I get one of those photographed tickets for running a red light they just send the ticket in the mail to me as the owner of the vehicle that matches the tags in the picture. In order to avoid the ticket I have prove that I wasn't driving it by sending in a police report to show it was reported stolen or by getting the person I loaned the car to confess and assume the ticket on their record. Doesn't this just encourage people to flee the scene? I thought the legality of that red-light procedure was currently being questioned. Yep. It took prosecuting a year - when their witness was on the stand - to figure out she never saw ROR driving the trunk. That's almost believable. It's not like they're devoting a lot of resources to a non-fatal, no injury traffic case. They're probably giving it about as much attention as I would give a residential eviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Really? And here I was thinking I was the official spokesperson of the Canadian judicial system... I guess I just have a low tolerance level for people who drink and drive and have the money/status to get away with it. I'm not sure of everyone else's background, but if it was my car that crashed into Tim Horton's, I'm pretty sure I would still be in jail. You would probably be quite surprised at the number of DUI cases, Joe Schmoe on up, that end up going nowhere for various reasons. As long as you have the wherewithal not to blow, things get... complicated. DUI is the rare crime that people of means are every bit as likely to be charged with as everyone else. Hence, it's been litigated about a billion times. See the recent Supreme Court decision striking down criminal sanctions for refusal to submit to a blood draw. That's going to lead to a whole lot more search warrants at 2am on a Saturday... especially since about a quarter of the cases I've seen have involved something besides booze. Any defense attorney worth his salt, provided the facts aren't too egregious, can usually get something done. Not qualified to comment on why this particular case went as it did though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 To be honest I would be in no way surprised if ROR paid to have the Timmy's fixed under the table and they agreed to drop the charges. Though maybe it was truly mistaken identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 I knew it was all a mistake. ROR would never drive drunk and hit a Timmy Ho's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 What I don't get is how they can't just assume he was driving because he owns the vehicle and then put the onus on him to prove he wasn't. If I get one of those photographed tickets for running a red light they just send the ticket in the mail to me as the owner of the vehicle that matches the tags in the picture. In order to avoid the ticket I have prove that I wasn't driving it by sending in a police report to show it was reported stolen or by getting the person I loaned the car to confess and assume the ticket on their record. Doesn't this just encourage people to flee the scene? In Canada, the registered owner of the vehicle is sent the photo radar ticket, but no demerits are applied to the driving record, precisely because they can't prove it was actually the owner driving the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Looks like the prosecution's case consisted of "it was O'Reilly's truck and the police found him with it later" Talk about reasonable doubt, Whatever your views on what is likely to have actually happened, that never should have gone to trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Assuming that ROR really was driving, are his hands really clean here? Is there nothing to be said for fessing up and taking his medicine, given his "celebrity" status? Or his status as a "human being"? Also, no security cameras on the premises? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Assuming that ROR really was driving, are his hands really clean here? Is there nothing to be said for fessing up and taking his medicine, given his "celebrity" status? Or his status as a "human being"? Also, no security cameras on the premises? So you think he should "confess" because he owes you and society a debt because he's mildly famous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.