Now that the jury is in deliberation for the trial of Nathaniel Veltman, new information has emerged regarding various aspects of the case that were not disclosed to the jurors. From potential mistrial motions to the content of Veltman’s manifesto and the changing opinions of expert witnesses, there are critical details that shed light on the complexity of the trial.
One notable incident occurred during the Crown’s closing arguments when the defense submitted a motion for mistrial, claiming that trial fairness had been compromised. Defense lawyer Christopher Hicks expressed shock at certain references made by the Crown, arguing that the inflammatory language could emotionally influence the jury’s perception of the case. However, the judge ruled against a mistrial and instead provided an instruction to the jury to set aside any emotional reactions they may have had.
Additionally, questions arose regarding the inclusion of Veltman’s manifesto as evidence during the trial. The media pushed for the publication ban to be lifted, arguing that the manifesto was crucial in establishing the allegations of terrorism against Veltman. The judge ultimately permitted the inclusion of direct quotes from the manifesto as evidence, but the entire document was not publicly released.
Another significant development pertained to the evolving opinions of defense witness Dr. Julian Gojer, a forensic psychiatrist. It was revealed that Dr. Gojer had not disclosed certain aspects of his opinions and the basis for them, leading to concerns from the judge about the defense’s strategy. Despite these revelations, the judge allowed the evidence to stand, highlighting the importance of a fair trial for the accused.
Lastly, the trial faced a moment of uncertainty when defense lawyer Christopher Hicks threatened to quit, arguing that the judge had diminished the status of counsel. However, after discussions with his co-counsel and Veltman, Hicks decided to continue with the trial.
These various incidents and revelations underline the intricacies and challenges of the trial of Nathaniel Veltman. As the jury deliberates and weighs the evidence presented, it remains to be seen how these hidden details and events will impact the final verdict.
1. What happened during the mistrial motion?
The defense submitted a motion for mistrial during the Crown’s closing arguments, alleging that trial fairness had been compromised. The defense was shocked by certain references made by the Crown and argued that they could emotionally impact the jury’s perception of the case. However, the judge ruled against a mistrial and instead provided an instruction to the jury to set aside any emotional reactions they may have had.
2. What was the controversy surrounding Veltman’s manifesto?
The media sought to lift the publication ban on Veltman’s manifesto as they believed it played a significant role in establishing allegations of terrorism against him. While the judge allowed direct quotes from the manifesto to be used as evidence, the entire document was not publicly released.
3. What were the concerns about Dr. Julian Gojer’s testimony?
During the trial, concerns arose about Dr. Gojer’s evolving opinions and the basis for these opinions, which had not been adequately disclosed. The judge allowed the evidence to stand but expressed concerns about the defense’s strategy.
4. Why did defense lawyer Christopher Hicks threaten to quit?
Hicks threatened to quit after the judge’s ruling, claiming that she had diminished the status of counsel in the eyes of both the jury and Veltman. However, after discussions with his co-counsel and Veltman, Hicks ultimately decided to continue with the trial.