Hockey player Gordon MacIsaac was charged with aggravated assault after an on-ice collision with another hockey player during a game, and he was later convicted of the crime. However, the Ontario Court of Appeals recently overturned the conviction. The court ordered a retrial because the trial judge in the previous case imposed a personal knowledge about hockey on the case's facts.
According to a three-judge panel, the judge in the previous case employed speculative reasoning to reach the verdict of guilty in December 2013. In the case, MacIsaac was accused of blindsiding opponent Drew Casterton during the last minute of a March 2012 hockey game. Casterton was left unconscious with facial cuts and broken teeth as a result of the incident. However, MacIsaac's defense counsel countered that it was an unavoidable collision.
The original judge found that witnesses from the opposing teams tended to have a bias with regard to what happened during the accident. Instead of going with the defense, however, the judge sided with the injured hockey player's testimony. In her opinion, the on-ice positions of the defense at the time of the accident were illogical.
The Appeals Court decided that the first judge had used speculative reasoning to reject the defense's testimony and that she thereby denied the defendant's right to receive a fair trial.
Opinions about the law vary just as much as they do about hockey. The thing is, a ruling on a legal case could have serious consequences for those accused of crimes. As such, it is important for anyone accused of a crime to take his or her criminal defense seriously. Even in cases of conviction, there could be hope for the accused if the situation warrants an appeal.
Source: CBC News, "Gordon MacIsaac gets new trial after hockey assault conviction Ottawa judge used 'impermissible speculative reasoning' about hockey strategy in decision," Chloe Fedio, Sep. 02, 2015
No Comments
Leave a comment