In Toronto, the trial jury reappeared in their deliberations Friday morning to ask another question in court as they were detained in the courthouse for the fourth consecutive day. All his questions had to do with the credibility of the two complainants.
Jacob Hoggard was charged with inappropriate sexual touching of a minor and sexual assault causing harm against both a teenage girl and an adult in the Toronto area in 2016.
Consent is central to litigation.
Justice Gillian Roberts of the Ontario Superior Court again commended the jurors for their efforts and exemplary work.
However, he did not hesitate to send them back to do their duty on Thursday, when they admitted that they were not disturbed, ready to throw in the towel.
The jury has since returned to question the court, suggesting that it was interested in the state of mind of the two complainants after the alleged events and their credibility.
For one, it’s about determining the truth of the injuries she said she suffered after she was allegedly raped at a Mississauga hotel in September 2016.
For another, the jury questioned the credibility of his statements about a phone call the singer recorded without his knowledge after it allegedly assaulted him at a hotel in Toronto in November of the same year.
So the jury asked to hear, on Thursday, part of the testimony at the trial bar of the teenager’s best friend, who went to confess at his home after having sex with the singer.
In the audio recording, the friend explained to the court that he saw his friend’s genitals red and swollen, but he noticed nothing strange in other parts of the complainant’s body.
We cannot name the witness under the penalty of identifying the minor.
The friend explained that he was careful in cleaning the young complainant’s underwear, as they were stained with blood.
At that trial, the defense suggested that the two women magnified, even invented, their injuries after having sex with the defendant.
The jury then requested that the Crown’s final arguments be heard again regarding this particular testimony.
The judge explained to him that, however, he could not have done so without in conjunction with presenting the final arguments of the defense on this subject for reasons of fairness.
Friday’s question was less mysterious, as he first asked to know the legal meaning ofstate of mind and how to apply it to the testimony of one of the two complainants, which he has not, however, determined.
The court understands, however, that this is the second alleged victim, who was 22 years old at the time of the cases.
The judge will also give the jury the definition appropriate to the telephone conversation in question.
At the time, the woman called Jacob Hoggard to apologize for his behavior in bed after he happily agreed to have sex with her in Toronto.
In particular, he told her that he needed to have stitches on his private part and he would contact a lawyer if he did not apologize to her.
It turns out he no longer had to have surgery and lied about his threat to call a lawyer.
In his response, the judge asserted that the state of mind can take on a person’s beliefs, perceptions, emotions and intentions.
He then explained to the jury that they could try to determine the complainant’s state of mind on the phone call by examining, for example, his voice and his answers.
He reminded her that she also had the right, but not necessarily, to make conclusions about the woman’s perceived concerns during this conversation.
The magistrate specified that jurors should try to explore the possibility that the complainant was resentful and his reasons for doing so.
Was he upset, because he was raped as claimed by the Crown or because he felt embarrassed after the defendant left him as the defense says?he wondered answer.
The judge concluded that the woman’s state of mind in this conversation could be circumstantial evidence, which would help her better weigh the credibility of her testimony at trial, but only about this appeal and not about in his whole story on the witness stand.
Source: Radio-Canada
