Crown suggests pimp hopes to use outrage at officer for acquittal

A prosecutor suggested Tuesday that convicted pimp Reza Moazami was not careful in drafting a recent affidavit related in part to the alleged misconduct of disgraced Vancouver police detective Jim Fisher.

Trevor Shaw made the comment as he cross-examined Moazami in the B.C. Court of Appeal about his claims that there was a miscarriage of justice involving Fisher, the lead investigator in the Moazami case, that called for a new trial to be ordered.

The affidavit filed by Moazami said that if he had known about the alleged misconduct at the time of the trial, he would have chosen to be tried by a jury rather than a judge alone.

Court heard that in April 2013, Moazami elected to be tried by a judge alone, with the trial commencing in September 2013.

Fisher's alleged sexual and other forms of misconduct involving the young complainants allegedly stretched from 2011, before the trial began, and continued until 2016.

Under questioning from Shaw, Moazami agreed that in terms of changing the kind of trial, what mattered was the misconduct that existed at the time of the decision.

“I'm going to suggest to you, sir, that when you swore this affidavit, you were not careful about what was before and after April 2013,” said Shaw. “You assumed that all (of Fisher's) misconduct could be included?”

After a long pause, Moazami said that Shaw's assertion was not accurate.

Asked by Shaw as to whether he thought a jury hearing about police misconduct would want to send a message and acquit him, Moazami replied that when you looked at Fisher's misconduct, it made it “crystal clear” that he was after a conviction.

“I'm suggesting to you that what you think might happen is that a jury might be outraged by the police conduct and will give you an acquittal as a result,” said Shaw.

“I would opt for a jury trial if the misconduct was discovered,” said Moazami.

Shaw told the three-judge panel of the Appeal Court that there were many elements in the case which made it a “terrible case” for a jury from the defence perspective and asked to be able to question Moazami about those details.

But the panel told him that he could make those submissions during his final arguments.

Moazami was convicted in September 2014 of 30 counts related to the sexual exploitation and assault of victims as young as 14 years old. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

In addition to the allegations regarding Fisher, Moazami is arguing on appeal that his lawyers at trial did not properly represent him, specifically in relation to the questioning of two complainants who were sexually assaulted.

Earlier Tuesday, Shaw questioned Moazami about his claims that his lawyers Daniel Markovitz and Karen Bastow had not done an effective job representing him.

Bastow testified that Moazami had participated more in the trial process than any other client she had had to that point in time.

Under questioning from Thomas Arbogast, a lawyer for Moazami on the appeal, Bastow told the panel the accused took notes in the course of direct evidence of every complainant.

“Then he gave the notes to us and we incorporated those notes into our cross examination of the complainant. So anything he had to say in relation to a complainant, he wrote down in his notes.”

Final arguments are set to be heard starting Jan. 25.