Judge orders extra police presence at trial

Two men charged with first-degree murder in the stabbing death of Carel Douse in May 2019

In an unusual move, the judge in the first-degree murder trial of Daniel Wise and Alieu Jeng has ordered that two police officers be present outside the doors of John Sopinka Courthouse downtown, whenever jurors come and go from the building.

Justice Toni Skarica made the order in the presence of the jury in open court Wednesday afternoon, citing the need to “prevent further interference” with jurors.

“As you are aware,” he said to the 11-member jury, “we have two instances in the past two days when a member of the public approached a juror.”

Further, Skarica said he has “ordered a police investigation into it.”

He told the jury that two Hamilton police officers will be posted outside the building to meet them each morning, and during the lunch break, and at the end of each day of the trial. The officers will also escort jurors to the jury room.

Skarica said nothing further in open court about the nature of the interference.

He told the jury that they must not make “any adverse inferences against either accused” or “even consider these instances” in deciding the “guilt or innocence of the accused.”

Wise and Jeng are accused of stabbing 33-year-old Carel Douse to death on May 18, 2019.

Crown attorney Brian Adsett has told the jury that at about 3 a.m., Douse was stabbed “at least three times” inside an after-hours club at a barbershop called More Than A Haircut, near King Street East and East Avenue South.

Adsett said Douse then ran from the club and his body was found on the porch of a house nearby on East Avenue North. He had been stabbed a total of 19 times.

The prosecutor has frequently referenced the nicknames of the victim and co-accused each day of the trial. Douse’s nickname was “Blackz,” while Wise was known as “Fat Al” or “Berta,” and Jeng “Braids” or “Fresh.”

The trial continues Thursday.

Justice Toni Skarica made the order in the presence of the jury in open court, citing the need to “prevent further interference” with jurors