Appeal in double murder case to go before court April 1

Whitehawk asking for convictions to be overturned

Nearly two years have passed since a jury convicted Dillon Ricky Whitehawk of murdering two men in two separate Regina drive-by shootings.

But on April 1, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear lawyers argue about whether those convictions should be overturned.

In total, Whitehawk, 29, has been convicted of three murders. In April of 2022, he was convicted of murdering Jordan Gaiton Denton and Keenan Scott Toto, whose deaths occurred in 2019. In December 2022, a judge convicted him of murdering Keesha Cree Bitternose, who died in 2020.

It is the first two, which were convictions for first-degree murder, that the April 1 hearing will be concerned with. However, appeals have been filed by both Crown and defence in relation to the Bitternose case.

Whitehawk's legal team, led by Thomas Hynes, contends the

The qualification of this expert was proper and his evidence was free from bias.

judge who presided over the trial pertaining to the deaths of Denton and Toto made a number of errors, and a new trial should be ordered.

Whitehawk was said to have been a member of Regina's Indian Mafia street gang at the relevant time. The trial featured much testimony on the workings and politics of Regina street gangs. The trial heard from both police officers and people who were gang members when the killings occurred.

One of the written arguments made by Whitehawk's lawyers on appeal is that a specific police officer should not have been designated an expert witness and allowed to give testimony about the Regina gang landscape, which included information about a supposed gang war that began in 2019.

The Crown recently filed its own written arguments, dated March 18, which refute this and every other point of contention raised by the convicted man.

Crown appeal lawyer Grace Hession David rejects the defence notion that the evidence about gangs formed the “central aspect” of the case against Whitehawk. Rather, she contends it was the “evidence of the eyewitnesses to the horrific murders” that formed the backbone of the case.

Nonetheless, there was nothing wrong with the qualification of the officer by the judge, she contends.

“The qualification of this expert was proper and his evidence was free from bias,” she wrote.

Whitehawk argues the judge should have allowed prospective jurors to be questioned on potential bias relating to street gangs.

“The case against Mr. Whitehawk was replete with prejudicial evidence,” reads a written argument from his lawyers, who submit this evidence would have evoked strong feelings and partiality within the jury pool.

Further, his lawyers contend the judge should have conducted “an inquiry” when “an issue arose from the media supposedly contacting a juror.”

Both of these claims involve arguments that circumvent the jurisprudence and can be given no weight,” Hession David wrote in response, later delving deeper into her reading of the law surrounding Whitehawk's arguments.

“The trial judge correctly followed the law. There were no `serious legal errors' attached to this trial. The appellant enjoyed a fair trial and his rights were respected according to the law.”