“It is now your duty to determine Stanley’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Those were the words uttered by Justice Martel Popescul when charging the jury during the second-degree murder trial of Gerald Stanley.
Stanley has been on trial in a courtroom in Battleford for the past two weeks for the shooting death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie.
On Thursday afternoon, Judge Popescul spent over an hour going over the responsibilities of the jury before they meet to determine their verdict.
Popescul reminded the jurors that their decision must be made based off the information they have heard during this trial. He encouraged them to not make decisions out of passion, prejudice or public opinion and to disregard anything else they have heard or read about the case in other media.
The judge also reminded the jurors that it has been up to the crown to determine Stanley’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“He does not have to prove anything,” said Popescul in reference to Gerald Stanley.
Popescul also went through the evidence that was presented in the trial and outlined the arguments by the Crown and defence as they were laid out on Thursday morning.
Any decision administered by the jury must be unanimous. There biggest decision will be to determine what Stanley’s intent was when the bullet discharged from his firearm struck and killed Colten Boushie.
The 12 people who make up the jury will have three options to choose from. If Stanley is guilty of second degree murder, if Stanley is guilty of manslaughter or if he should be acquitted of the charges against him.
A second degree murder conviction will come with a mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility for at least ten years. The judge can decide to extend the eligibility. A manslaughter charge can carry a life sentence, but typically falls in the range of five to 10 years. Parole is available after serving one third of the sentence.
The jury is now deliberating before they come to their decision. This could take as little as a few hours are as long as several days.
Defence lawyer Scott Spencer began Thursday morning’s arguments by calling into question the testimonies of Boushie’s other passenger’s in the SUV. The other passengers provided conflicting versions of events in the moments around Boushie’s death.
Spencer then claimed that Stanley accidentally shot Boushie. He says after firing two warning shots, a “hang fire” from Stanley’s gun struck and killed Colten Boushie.
“This is a terrible accident,” Spencer told the jury.
Throughout the trial the jury has learned that a hang fire is when a trigger on a gun is pulled and there is a delay before the gun actually fires the bullet. Expert witnesses provided conflicting accounts on how likely it was that a hang fire would have occurred in Stanley’s gun.
Gerald Stanley had told the court he thought he only loaded the gun with two bullets, but now knows there were three. He testified to firing two warning shots in the air before trying to unload any remaining bullets.
There was a bulge found in a cartridge found near the SUV, but that does not necessarily indicate a hang fire only that the bullet was not centred when it was fired.
Spencer argued that Stanley did not have the intent to kill Colten Boushie when he pulled the trigger of his gun, but when it discharged it was pointing at Boushie.
“It is unlikely, but possible,” says Spencer.
The defence lawyer submitted that the trial comes down to if Stanley reacted reasonably in a what he called “roller-coaster” situation.
Spencer concluded his arguments by saying “it’s a tragedy, but it’s not criminal,” and asked the jury to acquit Stanley of the charges against him.
Crown lawyer Bill Burge argues that if the jury finds that Stanley pulled the trigger of his gun while pointing it at Boushie they should convict him of second-degree murder. He also says if the jury decides that Stanley was careless in his use of a firearm they should find him guilty of manslaughter.
Burge argues that Stanley was “careless” in his handling of a firearm. He points to Stanley bringing a loaded gun into an already volatile situation as an example of his “carelessness” and “escalation” of the altercation.
Burge then dove into technical details about the gun Stanley was using. He pointed to prior evidence that the gun needed an intentional pull of the trigger to fire a bullet and the gun was not prone to misfire.
In response to the argument of a hang-fire, Burge pointed to testimony from a gun expert who says he has fired thousands of bullets and only experienced one hang fire while reloading.
“These hang fires are extremely rare,” Burge told the jury. “What Mr. Stanley is describing to you couldn’t have been the case.”
Burge argues that if there was no hang fire Stanley intended to kill Boushie and should be convicted of murder. He argues that if a hang fire did occur Stanley should still be convicted of manslaughter.
Outside the courtroom dozens of supporters of Boushie’s family braved the frigid temperatures carrying signs and chanting “justice for Colten.”
“Colten Boushie matters to all of us, justice for him belongs to all of us and it is our responsibility to make that happen,” said supporter Christine Freethy from Rabbit Lake. “We are here together as a community, we share this…there will not be another Colten Boushie as long as we keep working together.”
As proceedings wrap up, the FSIN issued a Facebook post containing the following statements:
“Colten Boushie’s family needs your support. Please attend the hearing or keep them in your prayers today and throughout the next few days as the jury begins final deliberations… We remind everyone to be kind, respectful, peaceful and supportive of those whose lives will never be the same following this tragedy. We must overcome and rise above the hatred and racism to make a brighter future for our children.”
UPDATE:
After several hours of deliberating the jury has yet to make a decision on the guilt of Gerald Stanley.
After hours of deliberating on Thursday night the jurors did request to hear portions of testimony from Gerald and Sheldon Stanley.
The jurors asked to hear Sheldon Stanley’s testimony from the moment he first left the house and asked to hear Gerald Stanley’s testimony from the point he fired the first shoot.
The lawyers discussed whether the jury could be presented with isolated testimony and determined they would have to hear the testimony in its entirety.
There is several hours of testimony to review.
The jury took a break after 9:00 pm and will continue the deliberations at 9:00 am Friday morning.
(PHOTO: Gerald Stanley. Photo courtesy of Manfred Joehnck.)