Heading back to the courthouse this morning for the continuation of Dellen Millard’s first-degree murder trial. Follow along today for updates.
We’ll begin today with the Crown’s reexamination of Det. Const. Sutherland, the crime scene reconstructionist who testified at the end of the last week.
Then the Crown and Millard’s lawyer will make their cases for specific evidence to be included or excluded in the judge’s decision. The evidence is Sutherland’s testimony itself, and the video of Millard giving his statement to police on the night he says he found his father’s body. It’s pretty key stuff.
We're in the courtroom now, just waiting for things to get underway.
Court is now in session. Crown Jill Cameron is doing a reexamination of Det. Const. Sutherland.
She's starting with talking about the scientific method, and referring to a book that Millard's lawyer, Ravin Pillay, brought up in his cross-examination.
Cameron asks Sutherland if "disproving" a hypothesis is part of the scientific method in crime scene reconstruction. Sutherland says no, it's not. He says be believes he followed the scientific method in this case.
Cameron now asking if analyzing cylinder gap impressions is part of Sutherland's training. He says yes, it is. It was part of the courses he has taken and taught.
Cameron is also touching on the control testing Sutherland used. She asks if there was a defect in the chamber, if it would be seen in cylinder gap impressions on the left side, or right side. He says it would be seen on both sides.
A cylinder gap impression is basically a sooty, gunshot residue impression, which is launched from a gap between the cylinder of a gun when it is fired.
Cameron is now moving on to the portion of Pillay's cross where he suggested part of a blanket could have been covering part of Wayne Millard's hand, as an "intermediary surface." That's something that interrupts gunshot residue pattern.
"In your opinion, did something obstruct that cylinder gap impression from hitting the pillow?" Cameron asks. "Not in my opinion, no," Sutherland responds.
Cameron is now moving on to ask about blood transfer.
Sutherland says a blanket covering Millard's hand would further complicate things, and make it more difficult for him to hold the gun and pull the trigger. He has already testified that it would be extremely difficult for Millard to have shot himself in the way he was positioned.
Sutherland again says the trajectory of the bullet into Millard's skull was never part of his analysis.
Cameron is now pointing to some of the photos from Sutherland's presentation. In one of the photos, the trajectory rod in the mannequin head that he used for his tests has a hole very close to where the bullet was found in Millard's skull.
That's it for Sutherland's testimony. That's the Crown's final witness for the trial, now finished.
Cameron says the Crown will now make submissions on the admissibility of Sutherland's evidence. The Crown wants it kept in, obviously, but Millard's lawyer, Ravin Pillay, wants it kept out. She says there is a challenge to the officer's qualifications, and over bias.
Cameron says Sutherland was able to test the specific gun used in the case to give his opinion evidence, which bolsters his findings.
Cameron is also pointing out Sutherland's qualifications. "He's test fired and studied hundreds of guns in the last two years alone," Cameron says.
The judge now asking if there's any part of Sutherland's evidence that is not contested. "I'm opposed to his expert evidence in its entirety," Pillay says.
Cameron is now pointing out that not only has Sutherland taken courses in shooting scene reconstruction -- he has thought them, too.
"In my submission, he is well qualified to give an opinion," Cameron says. "He demonstrated a significant body of knowledge about how this works."
It's worth noting that is is not usually how this would happen. In a jury trial, this argument would most likely happen before Sutherland testified -- and I wouldn't be able to report on it until the jury retired to consider its verdict. But as this trial is before a judge-alone, so it's all fair game. The judge will decide whether or not she will consider the evidence in her decision. This is really key evidence for the Crown.
Cameron also says Sutherland was fair in his evidence, and worked to make sure he was not biased. "He understands his job is not to provide evidence for one side or the other ... everything he did was transparent," she says.
"You should not disqualify him on the basis of bias and impartiality," Cameron says.
Cameron is also pointing out that Sutherland mentioned things that could help the defence's position -- ie, he did not totally rule out that Wayne Millard could have shot himself. Though Sutherland was pretty emphatic that he didn't think Millard shot himself.
Cameron is now calling back to case law she says supports her position.
"There is nothing in this record that would disqualify Det. Const. Sutherland on the basis of bias, or on his record," Cameron says. She also notes Sutherland faced a similar challenge in a court case last year, and his evidence was allowed in.
Cameron also notes there is evidence that Dellen Millard travelled to his fathers home early on Nov. 29 and "created an alibi" for himself. She also says Dellen Millard's DNA was found on the alleged murder weapon.
"His evidence his relevant," Cameron says about Sutherland.
Cameron says Sutherland's evidence won't be lengthy and encumber a jury -- as there isn't one. She also says this isn't bad character evidence, it was instead "transparent and scientific."
"There is no danger that you won't be able to critically assess the evidence," Cameron says. "This is clear, emperical, scientific testing."
We're now taking the morning break, before Pillay makes his submissions. We'll be back in 20 minutes.
Court is now back in session. Pillay is arguing his case for why Sutherland's evidence should be kept out.
Pillay says the key question here is still whether or not Wayne Millard committed suicide, and Sutherland's evidence basically says no, he did not. "It has the potential to swallow the fact finding function whole," he says.
Pillay is now calling back to case law in an attempt to bolster his submissions.
"The evidence in this case is complex. It is not simple, it is difficult to comprehend," Pillay says. "The complexity of the material distinguishes it from many other cases ... it raises a heightened concern that too great deference will be given to an opinion."
Pillay also says the "validity of the method" Sutherland used is key here. He contends Sutherland's methodology wasn't sound.
Pillay says that forensic scientists should have to "vigorously challenge or disprove a hypothesis, rather than to prove one." He says Sutherland's methods were "not scientific at all."
Pillay says he's going through ten areas where he says Sutherland failed in his methodology. "Det. Const. Sutherland assumed that the photographs he had from the scene accurately reflected the scene from the time of the shooting," he says. Pillay is suggesting the scene was contaminated, because things were moved.
Pillay says it's a "dangerous assumption" to assume the scene wasn't contaminated.
"It was incumbent on this witness to do more, ask questions, and investigate," Pillay says.
