DAILY DUFF

A day in the life of R. vs. Duffy

If Mike Duffy becomes a free man in a few months, it may well be because of a Toronto gang murder that happened more than 11 years ago. On the afternoon of Jan. 9, 2004, 19-year-old Simeon Peter was walking his girlfriend to her Scarborough home when Warren Abbey approached from behind, drew a pistol and emptied the gun’s magazine into a man he had mistakenly pegged for a rival gang member. In the series of trials, appeals and retrials to bring Peter’s killer to justice, the Canadian justice system ended up laying out the ground rules for how “expert testimony” is allowed into the courtroom. The Duffy trial is now debating whether a 2010 Senate report can be allowed as expert evidence. In the case of the Toronto murder, the Crown’s case was that Abbey got a teardrop tattoo below his eye only a few months after shooting Peter. In gang parlance, this can signify a few things, not the least of which is that the wearer has killed someone. At trial, Crown prosecutors brought in an expert to say just that to the jury. But the judge dismissed that as “unscientific,” and Abbey walked free. What made the case famous (at least to legal types) is that an appeal judge overturned the finding and concluded that although the expert testimony was technically just hearsay, it was a kind of hearsay that — in select instances — was worthy of jury consideration. Which is why Courtroom 33 suddenly found itself discussing the Abbey case on Wednesday. Duffy’s lawyer, Donald Bayne, thinks the 2010 Senate report meets the requirements set out in the Abbey case. Duffy’s prosecutor, Jason Neubauer, doesn’t. Next week, the judge will decide who’s right.