Pair appeals convictions from 2014 murder

Jury presented with ‘a dog’s breakfast ... in terms of evidence,’ lawyer for one says

In February 2017, a Prince Albert jury took less than a day to find two men guilty in the 2014 shooting death of 17-year-old Clayton James Bear.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the two men argued before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, asking the province’s highest court to overturn the jury’s verdicts.

Orren Johnson, now 30, was found guilty of first-degree murder and subsequently received the mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years. Jordan Herron, now 25, was convicted of second-degree murder and received a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 11 years.

Immediately after the verdicts, trial lawyers for the pair expressed surprise, telling reporters they questioned how the jury’s findings were supported by the evidence heard at trial. Appeals were filed.

While both men have since retained new lawyers — Brian Pfefferle for Herron and Harold Brubaker for Johnson — the questions remained largely the same.

“This was a dog ’s breakfast, to put it lightly, in terms of the evidence,” Pfefferle argued Wednesday, pointing to a range of inconsistencies in statements and testimony about the night in general and, more specifically, about Herron’s role in events.

While there were discrepancies about where Herron was in the house at the time of the shooting, Pfefferle noted no one put the gun in his client’s hands. He suggested the verdict appeared to be based on the fact his client was present in the house at the time — a detail he argued is insufficient to lead to a guilty verdict.

“Respectfully, it would be dangerous to convict Mr. Herron of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Pfefferle said.

He argued a second ground of appeal regarding Johnson’s trial lawyer drawing comparisons to the David Milgaard case. Pfefferle argued the reference was prejudicial to his client.

Meanwhile, Brubaker called into question the inconsistency in verdicts in this case, asking how it was possible for the jury to have convicted his client of first-degree murder while Herron was found guilty of second-degree. Brubaker argued the evidence before the jury amounted to the same thing for each accused, meaning the verdicts should also have been the same.

“The irreconcilable verdicts in this case should leave this honourable court with a concern, a justifiable concern, that something ran amok in the jury room,” he said.

Crown prosecutor Dean Sinclair argued there is no basis to interfere with the jury’s verdict. He said the jury had evidence upon which to base guilty findings, including an incident that took place approximately two hours before the fatal shooting. Sinclair noted someone shot several times at the house, and that Herron and Johnson were said to have been among those involved.

Sinclair said two witnesses described the men forcing their way into the house in the moments before Bear was shot. He said evidence put the gun in Johnson’s hand, adding Herron — having been present at the first shooting incident — would have known of the presence of a gun before entering the house with Johnson a second time.

Sinclair said if anyone was prejudiced by the Milgaard comment, it was the Crown, not Herron. In terms of Johnson’s argument about irreconcilable verdicts, Sinclair said since the evidence against the two men was not identical, it was open to the jury to arrive at different verdicts.

Justices Georgina Jackson, Neal Caldwell and Robert Leurer reserved decision.