Pubdate: Fri, 14 Aug 2015
Source: Guardian, The (CN PI)
Copyright: 2015 The Guardian, Charlottetown Guardian Group Incorporated
Contact:  http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/174
Author: Nigel Armstrong
Page: A5

IS IT ENOUGH TO CONVICT?

Court Hears Circumstantial Evidence in City Drug Case

Undercover police officers told a court they saw a man walk into a 
safe-house in Charlottetown with a plastic bag, then leave without 
it, but is that enough for a drug conviction?

It is one question facing provincial court judge Nancy Orr in a drug 
trial that forms part of Project Lurid which began in 2012. A drug 
raid on Feb. 13, 2014 resulted in the arrest of nine people from the 
Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Quebec.

Joel Daniel London, 25, of Montague was one of them. His trial 
wrapped up recently and Orr has set Sept. 2 at 10:30 for her decision.

Testimony at his trial said police saw him carry a plain grocery bag 
into a home identified as a safe-house for stashing drugs.

The officers said he left the home in Charlottetown a few minutes 
later without the bag and then seconds later police swept in for a raid.

Items found inside the home included two plain grocery bags 
containing a total of 447 grams of marijuana.

That, along with wiretapped cell phone text messages and coded 
conversations among London and the rest of the group is enough 
reasonable, circumstantial evidence for a conviction of possessing 
marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, argues Crown prosecutor 
Thomas Laughlin.

Police were alleging at the time of Project Lurid that raids in 
Charlottetown and Montreal netted a grand total of more than $70,000 
in cash, more than $350,000 in drugs including almost 50 pounds of 
marijuana, seven grams of ketamine which is a drug used in anesthesia 
but sold illegally for creating a dissociative state with 
hallucinations, plus more than 2,000 methamphetamine and hydromorphone pills.

Defence lawyer Chris Montigny says the case is too weak for a 
conviction. Officers staking out the home only had a few seconds to 
look at London going in and coming out, said Montigny.

The stake-out officers seemed strangely able to identify the colour 
of London's hair but not the colour of the grocery bag in his hand, 
Montigny told the court.

That was convenient because of the importance of London's nickname, 
Ginger, in wiretapped messages, the court had heard.

"You, as trier of fact, have to be extremely careful of eye-witness 
evidence," Montigny reminded Orr. "It is inherently unreliable.

"One of the fallacies you have to be careful of is a witness who is 
certain," said Montigny. "Certainly is not the same as reliability."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom