Convicted killer Allgood’s bid for new trial denied by justices
REGINA — George Mitchell Allgood, who was found guilty in January of first-degree murder and attempted murder, had his request for a new trial denied by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on Friday.
The appeal — urged by Allgood’s lawyers on June 26 — cited a recent Supreme Court of Canada case focusing on “Mr. Big” police stings.
Saskatoon Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Grant Currie convicted Allgood of fatally shooting his son’s mother, Susan Reinhardt, and shooting her partner, David Ristow, while they slept in their Saskatoon home on July 15, 2006.
Currie found evidence that Allgood acquired a gun and ammunition in advance, wore gloves during the shooting and wiped off the shells showed it was a planned and deliberate act.
His conviction was aided by his confession that he’d committed the crimes to an undercover RCMP officer.
Statements from the officer, who was posing as a crime boss, were allowed into evidence during Allgood’s trial. Allgood’s lawyers, Morris Bodnar and Scott Giroux, challenged his conviction on the basis of new case law in that area, arguing a retrial would allow a new judge to take it into consideration.
The Supreme Court has ruled evidence collected through Mr. Big investigations is inadmissible outside of certain circumstances.
Appeal court Justices Maurice Herauf, Ralph Ottenbreit and Peter Whitmore noted Currie’s statement at Allgood’s trial that, “In the absence of the admission ... the other evidence is not sufficient to prove that Mr. Allgood was the person who shot (the victims).”
However, their decision noted the Supreme Court’s decision on Mr. Big police stings occurred after Allgood was convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.
For that reason, “In my view, the probative value of the confession outweighs any prejudicial effect,” Herauf wrote. Ottenbreit and Whitmore agreed.
The Supreme Court found that operating a typical Mr. Big operation alone does not amount to an abuse of process. Something more is required, such as the police having been shown to overcome the will of the accused and coerced a confession.
According to the appeal court’s decision, “There was no indication that there was violence, threats of violence, or taking advantage of Mr. Allgood’s vulnerabilities on the part of the police.”
Herauf also noted he found no error in the way Currie handled the hearsay evidence relating to the statements by Reinhardt to co-workers and acquaintances concerning her fear of Allgood, to which Ottenbreit and Whitmore agreed.