Read on Twitter
Supreme Court of Canada orders new trial for Randy Riley in unanimous decision https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/supreme-court-of-canada-orders-new-trial-for-randy-riley-in-unanimous-decision/ by El Jones. I want to talk about this a bit.... 1/
As El notes, I've written about this case before. I attended some of the trial, but only after Nathan Johnson — the crown's main witness against Randy Riley — announced on the stand that he, and he alone, killed Chad Smith, and that Riley had nothing to do with it 2/
I was also in the courtroom when Riley read his dramatic statement to Smith's family. Since then, I've read the entire court transcript. 3/
This case has always bothered me. The Supreme Court ordered a new trial because of one particular issue (the improper use of a Vetrovec warning to the jury to impugn the testimony of the Crown's own witness), but there are other problematic aspects of this case 4/
I've gone to the scene of the murder, and walked the escape route of Johnson, where the gun was found, etc. More important, I saw where one witness saw a man — one man, not two — running from the murder scene, and realized from descriptions, etc, that that was Johnson. 5/
But beyond that, the Crown's theory of the case made no sense. When they were children, I forget the age, but like little kids, Chad Smith had hit Randy Riley over the head with a crowbar or some such, and supposedly Riley held this grudge against Smith... 6/
Then one day, a decade later, on a whim, Riley decided to kill Smith. It just doesn't make sense. The two were living in the same area for years, and Riley never accosted Smith, never expressed to anyone a desire for revenge. 7/
And the jury had such problems with the crown's theory that they rejected the first degree murder charge and convicted on second degree murder. This makes even less sense. 8/
The crown's whole theory was that the murder was premeditated: Riley plotted out the murder, travelled with Johnson to get a gun, made a phone call to lure Smith to a certain location, hid in that location in order to ambush him, and then killed him. Textbook 1st degree murder 9/
But the jury rejected that theory, and convicted on 2nd degree, which is murder of the moment, in rage, and so forth. That conviction doesn't fit the theory of the case. So there's that. 10/
There are other problems with the case. There's one VERY problematic witness. I won't go into this in detail now, but it appears he was coached by police. There's evidence that bears that out, and I'll write about it at a later date. 11/
And, I'm not as clear on this part as I should be (I need to study it more), but I don't think the technical evidence — cell phone tower pings — says what the crown says it says. That is, it doesn't place Riley at the murder scene. 12/
But mostly, my personal observation from the time I was sitting in the courtroom is that this was a racially charged trial. I saw it in the demeanour of the crown, the jury, others in the courtroom. Again, I have specific examples I hope to write about at a later date 13/
I work slowly. I've been studying this case for over a year, and thought that maybe sometime next year I could publish something about it. So today's Supreme Court ruling made me mention all this before I was ready. 14/
Who knows? Maybe Riley will be again convicted. Just, this is a case to pay attention to. /end
