O\u27Connell, J. P.

English

University of Denver

Denver Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 5 August 2021 Canadian Justice J. P. O'Connell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation J. P. O'Connell, Canadian Justice, 5 Denv. B.A. Rec. 21 (1928). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. THE DENVER BAR ASSOCIATION RECORDhouses and others make a lease con-tract or agreement of sale upon in-stallments, retaining the title in theseller. This is not required to be re-corded. Your purchaser, therefore,buys at his peril and the party caus-ing a levy of attachment or executionto be made therefor, never knowswhen a third party claim may be filedon behalf of some holder of an install-ment contract, and upon the filing ofsuch claim it becomes necessary thatthe so-called "seller" or third partyclaimant should be paid the amount ofhis claim unless the attaching partyor execution creditor presents to thesheriff within five days a verified state-ment that the claim of title under theconditional sale is void for reasonstherein specified and delivers to theofficer a good and sufficient indemnitybond which bond is made both to theofficer and seller or third party claim-ant.Canadian JusticeBy J. P. O'CONNELL,Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of DenverN the evening of July 18, 1927,one George McDonald and hiswife Doris, together with oneFrank Price, anxious to leave Canadabefore being apprehended and charge-tfor having issued spurious checks, en-gaged the services of a taxi driver totake them from Montreal to Rochester.New York. When about fifty miles outof Montreal, they killed the driver andtaking his money and the machine, fledto the United States.The McDonalds, travelling under thealias of "Carter" arrived in Denverabout August 5th. While here theyspared neither storemen nor bankersin their successful campaign to seejust how much they could raise onwholly worthless paper. They thenproceeded to Butte, Montana wherethey were arrested by local police act-ing upon wires from Denver. Afterbeing returned to Denver their realidentity was discovered from fingerprints, etc. and the Canadian auther-ities were notified.In due course Canadian Authoritiesarrived with extradition papers. Thesewere the most complete that the writerhas ever seen. Not a detail had beenoverlooked and it was apparent thatno expense had been spared in prepar-ing them. Canadian Justice thinksonly of results. No matter how costlythe securing of detailed information,if it is a link in the chain, the Canad-ian authorities see that it is secured.The case of The King as George Mc-Donald and Doris McDonald was call-ed for trial on the morning of Decem-ber 6, 1927 in a little town called Val-ley Field in the province of Quebec.about forty miles from Montreal. It isa French speaking community and thetrial therefore was conducted in bothFrench and English. Everything saidin French was translated into Englishand vice versa.A jury panel of about one hundredhad been summoned for service. Thesemen were selected by lot by the Sheriffof the County. The writer was credi-bly informed that all juries in thatcommunity are for conviction. Once aman is apprehended it is almost takenfor granted by the jury that he isguilty.The defendants were represented bythe most able lawyers in Montreal.They had been appointed by the Courtand although the case lasted nearlytwo weeks, they received nothing fortheir services. The attorney for theCrown received $20 a day when en-THE DENVER BAR ASSOCIATION RECORDgaged on the case. (He is allowed tohave his own private practise).The jury selected was composed ofsix Frenchmen and six Englishmen.At the conclusion of the case both de-fendants were found guilty and theCourt immediately pronounced thedeath sentence setting March 23rd asthe execution date.ProcedureThe procedure differed in some re-spects from that in our courts as didthe conduct of the case. The principaldifferences noted were:1. Selection of the jury.2. Rule as to objections and excep-tions.3. Instructions.4. Attitude of officials and citizens.5. Attitude of the press.Selection of JuryThe jurors are called one at a timeand accepted or rejected before anotherjuror is called. While inquiry may bemade, in this case not a question wasasked of a single juror concerning hisqualifications to sit. Under the lawthe defense had a right to 20 preemp-tory challenges for each defendant,giving them a total of 40. The Crownhad but 4 in all. As each juror is call-ed however the Crown has the rightto ask him to stand aside. He thenwaits until the panel has been exhaust-ed before again being called into thebox. In the McDonald case the defenseexercised all its challenges but enoughof the panel remained so that it wasunnecessary to recall any who hadbeen asked to stand aside.Objections and ExceptionsIt is not necessary for the defense toobject to the admission of incompetentor otherwise objectionable testimonyas the Crown assumes the responsibil-ity. If such testimony is admitted itis error regardless of failure to object.The reason given to the writer byJudges with whom he talked, was theseverity of the Canadian law and thealmost certainty of conviction. Thisforces them to throw every possiblesafe guard around the person on trial.Instructions of the CourtThe system of instructing the jury isthe same as that used in our FederalCourts. It consists of a statement ofthe law mingled with the comments ofthe Court on evidence produced or thefailure to produce evidence. It Isstated that perjured testimony does notescape the trained mind of the judgeas it does the jurors in so many cases.Attitude of Officials and CitizensIn the many courts visited by thewriter he saw none of the maudlinsympathy toward the defendant on thepart of citizens or court attendantsthat is found so often here. Inquiryshowed that any act on the part of anofficial which would tend to create sym-pathy for the defendant met with theCourt's disapproval at once. In theMcDonald case the mere putting of anarm on defendant's shoulder caused theremoval of the Matron in charge of thewoman prisoner.Attitude of the PressThe cases in the province of Quebecare tried in the court room and not inthe Newspapers. All that the papersprint is the testimony given and notthe views of the editors upon the guiltor innocence of the accused. The judgesby use of contempt proceedings controlthe conduct of the papers and are thusenabled to see that real justice ismeted out.The cost of the case of Crown vs. Mc-Donald, including capture, extraditionand trial, was $60,000. The utter dis-regard of expense, the surety of pun-ishment and the absolute certaintythat the verdict will not be interferedwith by pardoning boards undoubtedlyaccount for the low crime rate in Can-ada.(NOTE-Mr. O'Connell was taken toCanada as a witness in this case).

Canadian Justice

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6958&context=dlr

Canadian Justice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver