Obstruction of Justice?

Printable View

February 19th, 2016, 08:09 AM
B Wilson

Obstruction of Justice?

Check this out. Anyone else think that municipal prosecutor Terry Callaghan should be charged with obstruction of justice?

She mislead the testifying officer to believe that he was not required as there was a plea deal
Then, recuses herself from prosecuting due to conflict of interest, has the case moved to another court room
I assume this was all happening same day, and no notification given to other witnesses of the change of venue / court room
She then shows up in the new court room and asked to address the court, and suggests that defendant (retired police chief and father in law of current Ottawa Police chief ) plead not guilty as there are no witnesses present and the moves that the case be dismissed.
Also note that Ottawa Police Chief's wife was arranging a deal with the new prosecutor to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/02/18/...ice-chief-case
February 19th, 2016, 08:41 AM
werner.reiche

Read that in today's paper.
I'll be disappointed if there aren't charges laid.
I can't believe she orchestrated that and thought she would get away with it.

The article doesn't say what the prosecutors conflict of interest was.
Ottawa's police services is a mess of nepotism - everyone is related to everyone else. It's been staffed for decades by people hiring friends and relatives so this sort crap probably happens a lot more often that we hear about it.

The former police chief that was charged (Lester Thompson) has a daughter (Lynda Bordeleau) who is married to current police chief Charles Bordelau. She is a lawyer and was present for these shenanigans as well.
Hope the Ontario bar association has a chat with her as well.
February 19th, 2016, 09:18 AM
terrym

And these are the people with the power to financially ruin people and destroy lives. How comforting. This type of thing is why Americans trust no one ( especially government). I wonder how many judges in the Ottawa region are Liberal appointments and "part of the family"?
February 19th, 2016, 11:49 AM
Oddmott

It's pretty nuts. But actually tame for the various levels of corruption throughout Ottawa. Don't kid yourselves for a second about Lib vs Con appointments.

Ottawa is a very old town and all the VIP families that built Canada have some roots there. Their scandals and the like pre-date any Lib or Con party.
February 20th, 2016, 04:02 PM
Dearpoacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Wilson

She mislead the testifying officer to believe that he was not required as there was a plea deal
Then, recuses herself from prosecuting due to conflict of interest, has the case moved to another court room
I assume this was all happening same day, and no notification given to other witnesses of the change of venue / court room
She then shows up in the new court room and asked to address the court, and suggests that defendant (retired police chief and father in law of current Ottawa Police chief ) plead not guilty as there are no witnesses present and the moves that the case be dismissed.
Also note that Ottawa Police Chief's wife was arranging a deal with the new prosecutor to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/02/18/...ice-chief-case

I saw no mention of this matter having been moved to another court room. What I did read was that arrangements were made for another prosecutor. If this matter was in fact moved to a different court room then yes, there should be an inquiry to determine if the "other driver" was present in the original court room and told to go to the new room or not. If however the matter stayed in the same room and the "other driver" was not present then the charge should be rightly dismissed as only the "other driver" can identify the accused in this matter. The investigating constable can only confirm identity of the accused in order to issue the traffic violation and complete a collision report, he cannot testify as to who was actually driving at the time of the collision.

It may be a little convoluted but "hearsay" rules have to be followed and for reporting purposes a "driver" has to identify himself to the police, however that self identification is inadmissible "hearsay" for violation purposes as they are required by law to identify for the purposes of filing an accident report.
February 20th, 2016, 05:13 PM
B Wilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dearpoacher

I saw no mention of this matter having been moved to another court room. What I did read was that arrangements were made for another prosecutor. If this matter was in fact moved to a different court room then yes, there should be an inquiry to determine if the "other driver" was present in the original court room and told to go to the new room or not. If however the matter stayed in the same room and the "other driver" was not present then the charge should be rightly dismissed as only the "other driver" can identify the accused in this matter. The investigating constable can only confirm identity of the accused in order to issue the traffic violation and complete a collision report, he cannot testify as to who was actually driving at the time of the collision.

It may be a little convoluted but "hearsay" rules have to be followed and for reporting purposes a "driver" has to identify himself to the police, however that self identification is inadmissible "hearsay" for violation purposes as they are required by law to identify for the purposes of filing an accident report.

So you support the shenanigans then. Good to know.

change of court room does not really matter, the fact is the original prosecutor (wife of former deputy chief) declared a conflict and recused herself and then immediately starts telling the officer he does not need to stay and should leave. Allegedly she made several attempts to get him to leave. Why? The new prosecutor then made arrangements with the Chief of Police's wife who is a lawyer, but was not acting as a lawyer but only there to see if she could "assist in resolving the matter" Isn't that what lawyers do? She made arrangements to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
Then the original prosecutor who declared the conflict of interest, approaches the justice of the peace and states there are no witnesses yet didn't disclose that she was the one who told one of the witnesses that did show up, to leave.

You see nothing wrong with this?
Could you identify your relationship to any of the individuals involved please and thanks.
February 20th, 2016, 07:41 PM
Dearpoacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Wilson

So you support the shenanigans then. Good to know.

change of court room does not really matter, the fact is the original prosecutor (wife of former deputy chief) declared a conflict and recused herself and then immediately starts telling the officer he does not need to stay and should leave. Allegedly she made several attempts to get him to leave. Why? The new prosecutor then made arrangements with the Chief of Police's wife who is a lawyer, but was not acting as a lawyer but only there to see if she could "assist in resolving the matter" Isn't that what lawyers do? She made arrangements to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
Then the original prosecutor who declared the conflict of interest, approaches the justice of the peace and states there are no witnesses yet didn't disclose that she was the one who told one of the witnesses that did show up, to leave.

You see nothing wrong with this?
Could you identify your relationship to any of the individuals involved please and thanks.

Never said that, specifically stated there should be an inquiry if the court room was changed and there was no canvassing for the civilian witness (other driver). If the other driver was there and did not know of a change in the court room itself then there is something wrong, as the person would not have been told to go to a different room.

As stated the police member really would have had no evidence to give himself, unless he witnessed the accident which was probably unlikely. The important evidence in this matter would have to be given by the other driver or other persons who witnessed the driving behaviour of the accused to justify a charge of "careless driving". This, of course could be somewhat covered by the police officer if he had separate independent technical evidence, such as skid marks (speed determination), examination of the accused's vehicle (computer data), amount of damage and a collision reconstruction, etc. The fact there was only one police witness leads me to believe this was just a reported rear end accident and the only investigation done was that of taking a report and issuing a V.T. Without the other driver there just is no case in which a conviction could be registered. Even with a Hit & Run whereby a good investigation can identify a driver, sufficiently to charge, unless you can get the victim to testify there was an accident you really have no case.

FYI - I have no relation with the Ottawa police or the city prosecutors. I do however have close to 30 years policing experience of which at least 1/2 of that in traffic enforcement and extensive experience in Rules of Evidence, etc.
February 20th, 2016, 08:21 PM
B Wilson

Ok, forget the idea that the court room may have changed. The conduct of the original prosecutor, and her successful persuasion to have any witnesses leave the court house based on her advising that a plea deal was made and they were no longer required. Then she goe and addresses the justice of the peace advises no witnesses are present and has the case dismissed.

i fully get what you are saying about the officers evidence, but he was lied to and convinced his attendance was no longer required which allowed for the original procecutor who had declared a conflict of interest to bamboozle the justice to believe no whiteness at all showed up. Based on your seasoned experience, it would have been just as easy to let this run its course, as the officers testimony would not been enough to uphold the charge of careless driving.

So why did it play out the way it did?