Sides settle issue over gloves, trial to move ahead
Any lingering questions the Crown had about the receipts for Const. Daniel Montsion’s police-issued gloves have been “put to bed,” prosecutors said Tuesday, telling the judge they are now “able to complete this portion of trial.”
Crown counsel Philip Perlmutter had raised “concerns” last week around business records filed by Montsion’s defence showing the Oakley assault gloves the officer wore during Abdirahman Abdi’s fatal arrest on July, 24 2016, were purchased as protective equipment by superiors and issued to Montsion’s unit.
The police procurement records named Staff Sgt. Sandra Sparling of the DART (direct action response team) unit and were signed off by Supt. Don Sweet.
The Crown on Tuesday signed off on a brief agreed statement of facts that Perlmutter said should settle any outstanding “problems” the Crown had with the receipts.
Prosecutors last week raised, then abruptly abandoned, an application to call further evidence and witnesses to testify about the gloves.
Instead, the prosecution worked with the defence team of Michael Edelson and Solomon Friedman on an agreed statement of facts, at one point telling Ontario Court Justice Robert Kelly there were as many as 15 points of contention.
In the end only two points were resolved in the agreement — that another member of the DART unit, Const. Brad Rohrig, “was asked to order the Oakley assault gloves by his supervisor,” and that “he ordered them using a credit card as memorialized in (the receipts).”
The trial is expected to conclude in mid-October following a week of testimony from video experts over the reliability of the CCTV video from 55 Hilda St., evidence that has been in contention since the trial’s early days.
The gloves, likewise, were one of the first pieces of evidence tendered by the Crown back in early February, when the Crown alleged they were “unsanctioned” weapons.
Once the trial moves to closing arguments, the defence has asked the judge to hear the Crown’s submissions first, which both Kelly and Perlmutter acknowledged was a “reasonable” proposition.
“(The defence) wants to have some sense of the Crown’s theory of liability so they’re in a position to answer it,” Perlmutter said.
“I really do think it makes sense for the Crown to go first in their submissions ... (given) the nature of the evidence in this case, and the nature of a number of issues I expect will be before me,” Kelly said.
The defence would then make its rebuttal, and the judge assured the Crown it will get a “fair right of reply” in an oral hearing.
“No one is going to be denied the right to be heard,” Kelly said before adjourning.