Around the NHL 2024-2025

[Brian39]

The sexual assault trial against Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote, and Carter Hart started yesterday where the jury was selected. Our own Robert Thomas was named as a prospective witness. The trial will take part right during the playoffs so if he is called to testify sounds like he’d be able to do it via zoom. Hopefully won’t be a distraction for him but still, he needs to do his civic duty if he’s called upon to testify.

Rick Westhead: Jury selected at London hockey trial | TSN

Disclaimer that my knowledge of Canadian procedure is almost non-existent and I'm talking from my experience as a US litigator.

Like the US, Canada gives the defendant the right to confront witnesses and the presumption is for in-court testimony. There are things that can overcome that presumption and allow remote testimony, but generally speaking 'I have work and my job is important' isn't a good enough reason to authorize video testimony without the consent of the defendant in a criminal case. If I were representing one of these defendants, I would absolutely object to video testimony for an NHL player and a large part of my argument would be that my client's NHL career was ended as a result of these charges, so he shouldn't have to give up one of his fundamental rights to cater to the NHL schedule of a witness. Again, I'm far from well-versed in Canadian ruling/procedure, but I'd wager that the reports indicating these players could testify via zoom is much more speculation from the media than something telegraphed by the court. The defense would almost certainly fight it and I haven't seen a ruling that the court would allow remote video testimony. From a strategy/appeal standpoint, I'd be hesitant to fight for video testimony as a prosecutor in this case.

All that said, this is going to be a very long trial and pretty much every lawyer wants to inconvenience their witnesses as little as possible. While there is certainly evidentiary and strategy reasons behind the order you want to call witnesses, their availability schedule is a major consideration. I'd be very surprised if the prosecution rests before the end of May. The trial is scheduled for 8 weeks and the large majority of that will be the prosecution's case. The prosecution is going to try as hard as they can to avoid calling witnesses who are still playing in the NHL playoffs. The prosecution can push these witnesses toward the end of their presentation in order for their teams to get eliminated. If they don't get eliminated, they could then try to find a window where their team has 2-3 days off in a row to get them into court.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

In my profession I get requested as a witness in disputes such as two parents fighting for child custody. But a lot of the time, it’s not really that I have anything directly pertinent to contribute. It’s sometimes for dramatic effect. Fortunately, there are mechanisms my employer can use to quash inappropriate subpoenas. I won’t pretend to be an expert in how that stuff works, but if I had to cancel a day of work there are procedures and visits that other patients are planning around, sometimes very time sensitive. It’s not trivial, and it can potentially harm people.

I think there is a possibility of a prosecution or defense team calling NHL players in a way that is gratuitous and not directly salient. I’m curious what the mechanisms are to keep this type of thinks from happening. I also wonder what Thomas thinks personally about the entire incident.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Disclaimer that my knowledge of Canadian procedure is almost non-existent and I'm talking from my experience as a US litigator.

Like the US, Canada gives the defendant the right to confront witnesses and the presumption is for in-court testimony. There are things that can overcome that presumption and allow remote testimony, but generally speaking 'I have work and my job is important' isn't a good enough reason to authorize video testimony without the consent of the defendant in a criminal case. If I were representing one of these defendants, I would absolutely object to video testimony for an NHL player and a large part of my argument would be that my client's NHL career was ended as a result of these charges, so he shouldn't have to give up one of his fundamental rights to cater to the NHL schedule of a witness. Again, I'm far from well-versed in Canadian ruling/procedure, but I'd wager that the reports indicating these players could testify via zoom is much more speculation from the media than something telegraphed by the court. The defense would almost certainly fight it and I haven't seen a ruling that the court would allow remote video testimony. From a strategy/appeal standpoint, I'd be hesitant to fight for video testimony as a prosecutor in this case.

All that said, this is going to be a very long trial and pretty much every lawyer wants to inconvenience their witnesses as little as possible. While there is certainly evidentiary and strategy reasons behind the order you want to call witnesses, their availability schedule is a major consideration. I'd be very surprised if the prosecution rests before the end of May. The trial is scheduled for 8 weeks and the large majority of that will be the prosecution's case. The prosecution is going to try as hard as they can to avoid calling witnesses who are still playing in the NHL playoffs. The prosecution can push these witnesses toward the end of their presentation in order for their teams to get eliminated. If they don't get eliminated, they could then try to find a window where their team has 2-3 days off in a row to get them into court.

I don’t have much to add as obviously you have professional experience in this area but I’ll just add where I saw it:
Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Day 1: NHLers Revealed As Potential Witnesses, Plus Not-Guilty Pleas And Jury Selection

These players will be accommodated accordingly, likely through a live video feed if they are called upon to testify.

No idea if the Hockey News writer of the article is just guessing but good chance he has some sort of info that resulted in him writing that sentence. I guess we’ll find out eventually though. In any event, I’m sure the NHL teams of these guys still playing will do everything they can to delay the participation of their players until their season is over.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don’t have much to add as obviously you have professional experience in this area but I’ll just add where I saw it:
Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Day 1: NHLers Revealed As Potential Witnesses, Plus Not-Guilty Pleas And Jury Selection


No idea if the Hockey News writer of the article is just guessing but good chance he has some sort of info that resulted in him writing that sentence. I guess we’ll find out eventually though. In any event, I’m sure the NHL teams of these guys still playing will do everything they can to delay the participation of their players until their season is over.

Could it be that their participation is voluntary, not compulsory, and the court is making accommodations to not disincentive them giving testimony?

 

[Brian39]

I don’t have much to add as obviously you have professional experience in this area but I’ll just add where I saw it:
Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Day 1: NHLers Revealed As Potential Witnesses, Plus Not-Guilty Pleas And Jury Selection


No idea if the Hockey News writer of the article is just guessing but good chance he has some sort of info that resulted in him writing that sentence. I guess we’ll find out eventually though. In any event, I’m sure the NHL teams of these guys still playing will do everything they can to delay the participation of their players until their season is over.

I also can't tell whether the writer is making his own conclusion or reporting what was said in court.

I will note that even if it was said in court, that very well may not be a final ruling. I have no clue whether the court has already ruled on the motions in limine or whether the state had already provided notice about the video testimony. It could be an already settled issue or it could have been the prosecutor first presenting their intention to use video testimony for some witnesses which would then trigger potential defense objections.

In my profession I get requested as a witness in disputes such as two parents fighting for child custody. But a lot of the time, it’s not really that I have anything directly pertinent to contribute. It’s sometimes for dramatic effect. Fortunately, there are mechanisms my employer can use to quash inappropriate subpoenas. I won’t pretend to be an expert in how that stuff works, but if I had to cancel a day of work there are procedures and visits that other patients are planning around, sometimes very time sensitive. It’s not trivial, and it can potentially harm people.

I think there is a possibility of a prosecution or defense team calling NHL players in a way that is gratuitous and not directly salient. I’m curious what the mechanisms are to keep this type of thinks from happening. I also wonder what Thomas thinks personally about the entire incident.

It is worth noting that (in the US at least) the rights afforded to defendants are very different in criminal and civil cases.

There are a variety of ways opposing parties and subjects to subpoenas can try to prevent non-salient witnesses from going on the stand and in a case like this basically none of them would be public record. The short version is that the state generally has to provide some information about why a listed witness is potentially relevant. That could be a recorded interview of a witness, a police report with a summary of an interview, documents authenticated by that witness, etc. In most cases like this, the defense would seek to depose the witness to learn/document exactly what info the witness has. If the defense still believes that the witness doesn't have any relevant info, they would file a motion to exclude that witness. The state would then have to offer an explanation to the judge about why the witness was relevant and necessary.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Montreal appears much smaller than the Caps.

EDIT: They are.

 

[TheDizee]

watching the avs feed tonight, their announcers are so bad lmao

 

[Stealth JD]

Rough shift for Liam Bischel…blasted into the boards, then a few seconds later takes a puck to the nuts. Ouch.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Great job Stars. Killed off a 4 min penalty at end of reg and into OT. Win game 3 in OT.

LOL Avs fans

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Great job Stars. Killed off a 4 min penalty at end of reg and into OT. Win game 3 in OT.

LOL Avs fans

Stars have led for just over 70 seconds this series and lead 2-1.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Lots of 2-0 series right now. Blues aren't alone. They just need to keep fighting.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Both the Avs and the Oilers lost tonight.

 

[TheDizee]

Great job Stars. Killed off a 4 min penalty at end of reg and into OT. Win game 3 in OT.

LOL Avs fans

It's embarrassing how many joke PPs they get a game, yet their fans were crying about the refs and chanting REF YOU SUCK after Mackinnon CLEARLY tripped the Stars player which led to their tying goal. Seriously, when is the last f***ing time you saw a Blues playoff game where they got SIX powerplays? AND THEY WENT 0/6 LOL.

That series will be over in 5 and the Stars are not even at their A game right now. They have led for like 70 seconds the entire series but are leading 2-1 now hahaha

 

[The Note]

Gotta wonder if Edmonton pulls the trigger on a goalie change for game 3, even if it’s just for the game. Skinner is sporting an .810 save percentage (.838 at 5-on-5). Just not competitive. Credit to LA for playing well but when nearly 1/5 shots are going in the game gets much easier.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Gotta wonder if Edmonton pulls the trigger on a goalie change for game 3, even if it’s just for the game. Skinner is sporting an .810 save percentage (.838 at 5-on-5). Just not competitive. Credit to LA for playing well but when nearly 1/5 shots are going in the game gets much easier.

It won’t matter. That team is going down. They overachieved in the postseason last year and went all year thinking it was their time, but never looked like a dominant force. I don’t have a feel for how good the Kings actually are, but I’ve seen nothing from Edmonton that looks like a team that can pull it together.

 

[TheOrganist]

Edmonton had by far the worst offseason of any team and it’s showing its ugly head. Coupled with a vastly improved LA team and they’re in big trouble, both short and long term.

 

[ArenaRat]

What a nice spring cleaning it would be to clear the Avs, Oilers and Golden Knights from the playoffs in Round 1. Then someone needs to take care of the Stars and at least the doom scenarios are off the table.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

What a nice spring cleaning it would be to clear the Avs, Oilers and Golden Knights from the playoffs in Round 1. Then someone needs to take care of the Stars and at least the doom scenarios are off the table.

Is it bad I would love a Blues/Jets vs LAK WCF? Lol

 

[STL fan in MN]

Is it bad I would love a Blues/Jets vs LAK WCF? Lol

No.

But I mean, if you’re going to dream then just take the Jets out of the equation too, right?