STANLEY NOT GUILTY
Gerald Stanley was rushed away from the emotional courtroom scene Friday after a jury acquitted him in the death of Colten Boushie.
After a trial that captivated and polarized the province, Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley has been found not guilty of second-degree murder in the 2016 shooting death of Colten Boushie.
The jury began deliberating around 4 p.m. Thursday and announced shortly before 7 p.m. Friday they had reached a verdict. The seven women and five men on the jury spent Friday morning relistening to testimony from Gerald Stanley and his son Sheldon Stanley.
As the verdict was announced at 7:30 p.m. in Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench, Boushie’s mother Debbie Baptiste wailed.
“The system is cruel. You guys don’t even care about First Nations” one woman cried as she fled the courtroom.
Following the verdict, Stanley was led quickly out of the courtroom by security.
“This has been a very difficult case,” Chief Justice Martel Popescul said in the moments before the jury delivered its verdict. Despite “raw emotion,” those in the courtroom sat shoulder-to-shoulder with the two families and conducted themselves admirably, he said.
Boushie’s uncle, Alvin Baptiste told reporters outside the courtroom: “A white jury came out with a verdict of not guilty ... this is how they treat us First Nations people. It is not right. Something has to be done about this”
Premier Scott Moe urged citizens to be “measured in their reaction” following the verdict.
“Let us all remember our personal responsibility for our thoughts, our actions, and our comments – including those on social media,” he said in an emailed statement. “The Saskatchewan I am proud to call home is one that is strongest when our communities work together.”
Boushie, a 22-year-old from Red Pheasant First Nation, was fatally shot on Aug. 9, 2016, on Stanley’s farm in the RM of Glenside.
Late that afternoon, five people — Boushie, Cassidy Cross-Whitstone, Belinda Jackson, Eric Meechance and Kiora Wuttunee — got into a grey Ford Escape SUV and drove from Red Pheasant First Nation to a swimming spot by the river. All were consuming alcohol.
After the group left the river, they got a flat tire and then drove onto a farm 15 kilometres northeast of Stanley’s farm, where at least one person attempted to steal a truck by hitting the truck window with a .22-calibre rifle that was in the back of the SUV. The SUV was eventually driven onto Stanley’s farm. In the ensuing moments, an occupant of the SUV attempted to start a quad on Stanley’s property and the grey SUV collided with a parked vehicle on Stanley’s property, court heard. During the incident, Boushie — sitting in the driver’s seat — was killed by a single gunshot to the head from a handgun held at the time by Gerald Stanley. A bullet entered below Boushie’s left ear and exited on the right-hand side.
Forensic investigation determined Boushie was shot with a Tokarev semi-automatic pistol that was found in Stanley’s home.
Popescul, addressing the jury following the lawyers’ closing arguments on Thursday, said the first principle of law is the presumption of innocence.
There were three possible verdicts to come back with, he said: guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter or not guilty in the death of Boushie.
The Crown bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If Stanley is probably or likely guilty, that’s not good enough, Popescul noted. A reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense, and arises logically from the evidence or lack of evidence.
Popescul laid out the possible verdicts for the jury to consider. Both the Crown and defence agreed that it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanley caused the death of Boushie. The question, Popescul said, was whether Stanley caused Boushie’s death unlawfully by committing an assault or whether the shooting was an unintentional act that had unintended consequences.
Popescul told jurors that when Stanley grabbed his pistol and fired two warning shots into the air Stanley was acting lawfully. He told the jurors it would be up to them to decide if Stanley’s actions beyond that continued to be lawful.
The fatal incident and Stanley’s trial attracted widespread attention in large part because they exposed a deep racial divide in Saskatchewan. In the days after Boushie’s death, social media was filled with racist and hate-filled comments, with some people suggesting farmers have the right to use fatal force to protect their property.
Saskatchewan RCMP said they “looked into a number of instances of potential hate crimes” around online discourse related to Boushie’s death, but no charges were laid.
In the hours before the jury began its deliberations, RCMP issued a statement “reminding all people and parties to conduct themselves in a peaceful and civil manner regardless of the outcome.”
Stanley’s earlier court appearances attracted large crowds, with dozens of people gathering in and outside the courtroom to show support for the Boushie family.
Small groups gathered sporadically during the two weeks of the trial, with no incidents of note taking place.
“Neighbours working together in a spirit of inclusiveness and understanding is how the people of Saskatchewan have always met our challenges,” said RCMP assistant commissioner Curtis Zablocki.
As the Crown and defence gave their closing arguments Thursday, defence lawyer Scott Spencer attempted to paint a picture of a 56-year-old man reacting as any reasonable person would.
Spencer argued that Boushie’s death was a “freak accident” that occurred when Stanley responded in a “measured” way to a highly charged and dangerous situation that involved — in Stanley’s mind — strangers driving onto his farm, trying to steal his quad, crashing into his wife’s vehicle and attempting to run down his son.
“Things happen when you create this type of home invasion, fearfilled, high-energy roller coaster ride. When you create that, you create an opportunity for there to be an accident and a tragedy. And that’s what happened here,” Spencer told the jury.
“In this circumstance, the question is: If you were in Gerry ’s boots, would you reasonably be expected to do anything significantly different?”
The Crown’s primary argument is that Stanley fired two warning shots in the air and then walked up to the SUV Boushie was in and intentionally shot Boushie in the head. If the jury members unanimously believe that version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, they can convict Stanley of seconddegree murder.
Stanley testified in court that after firing two warning shots, he realized he couldn’t see his wife and was filled with a feeling of “pure terror” that she might be under the SUV. He said he ran toward it, reached into the driver’s window to turn the vehicle off and the gun — which he believed was empty — “just went off.”
The barrel of a .22-calibre rifle was found by Boushie’s body and DNA evidence suggests the firearm was with him in the driver’s seat at the time he died. Stanley told the jury he saw “something metal” pointed at him when he reached across Boushie to turn off the SUV, but that he hadn’t realized it might be a gun.
In his closing statements, Spencer said it would have been “so easy” for Stanley to have claimed Boushie pointed a rifle at him.
“It would have been way better to testify to self-defence than what actually happened, but he couldn’t,” Spencer told the jury. “He told you what happened.”
Crown prosecutor Bill Burge told the jury they “can’t believe what Gerald Stanley said.”
Burge took issue with how Stanley described the state of the Tokarev pistol after he fired his second warning shot.
Stanley told the jury he believed he had loaded two bullets in his gun. After he fired the second warning shot, he pulled the trigger several times to make sure the gun was clear, then brought the pistol down and popped the clip out, he testified. Stanley said the slide of the gun was back and the barrel was extended out, suggesting to him that the gun was empty.
If that was truly the case, Stanley’s gun could not have gone off, Burge argued.
A cartridge case found in the SUV had an unusual bulge. One possible explanation suggested by firearms experts during the trial was that Stanley’s gun had a hang fire and that, during a delay between when the trigger was pulled and when the cartridge detonated, something caused the cartridge to shift in the chamber of the gun.
Experts said hang fires are extremely rare and the only documented ones have lasted less than a second. They said the possibility of a hang fire may be increased when old and poorly stored ammunition is used.
Stanley told the jury the ammunition he used in his Tokarev was more than 60 years old and had been kept in an unheated shed. He said he had a hang fire on Aug. 9, 2016.
Spencer told the jury no one will ever know what caused the cartridge casing to bulge, but that a hang fire is the only reasonable explanation.
Burge also questioned Stanley’s claim that Stanley was worried for his wife’s well-being. He said Sheldon’s testimony did not support the story that Gerald Stanley sprinted to the vehicle.
In his instructions to the jury, Popescul said Stanley was within his right to get his gun and fire warning shots into the air, but that the jury must decide whether the actions he took after that continued to be lawful.
After more than four hours of deliberation, the jury requested to rewatch testimony from both Gerald and Sheldon Stanley. They asked to hear Sheldon’s testimony from when he came out of the house and heard the third gunshot and Gerald’s testimony starting from the point in which he fired the first shot.
After discussion with the Crown and defence, Popescul decided the jury should re-listen to the entirety of both testimonies rather than portions.
He gave the jury the option to listen to Sheldon’s testimony, which was more than an hour long, Thursday night or to start again in the morning. The jury opted to stop for the night.
The jurors were back in court Friday around 9 a.m., taking notes and listening to audio of the testimony.
When replay of the testimony audio ended shortly before 3 p.m., at which time the jurors were sent back to the jury room.