Happy Girl: The Latimer Dialogues 4

Laura was the last witness called by either side. Concluding statement and the judge’s instruction to the jury came next.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. This is the last opportunity I get to speak with you, and I’d like to start out by getting right to the meat of what our proposition is…

You have the power to decide one thing, you have the power to decide whether my client is guilty or not guilty, and you clearly have that power. . . It’s not for me to tell you what the law is, that’s his Lordship’s prerogative, and he’ll tell you what the law is and you take the law from him. One thing I know for sure, that at the end of this trial he’s going to tell you that you have a choice, you have a choice of convicting my client or acquitting my client, and that’s the one thing I know for sure, that you have that power to decide on guilt or innocence.

Here Brayford comes perilously close to advocating for nullification – “you have the power to decide on guilt or innocence.” If he had gone slightly further and added, say, “whatever the law says” he would have made the situation much clearer to the jury. But had he gone that far – remember that defence lawyers are prohibited from alluding to the possibility of nullification –  he would likely have incurred the wrath of the judge, and possibly have had a declaration of a mistrial. So the jury was left with hearing that their power was over deciding on guilt or innocence, but not understanding that this power extended to going against the law. Brayford went on to say what he thought he could get away with:

And so our position is quite simple, I simply ask you to find Robert Latimer not guilty, and I’m not going to go through a great amount of legal gymnastics or contortions with the facts, really trying to figure out how to get there, because I’ll only get myself into trouble…

I want to particularly speak about part of Laura’s cross-examination, when she was asked to read perhaps two or three dozen entries, over the course of 12 or 14 months prior to Tracy’s death, and some of those entries spoke about her perhaps smiling, eating or being happy. Well, think about if you were going to see someone who is dying of terminal illness, who is in excruciating pain, and after you went in to see them, and you came out, do you think you might come out and say they smiled at me? They may well have. Do you think you might come out and say they were happy to see me? The fact that Laura may have made comments that Tracy was able to keep a good amount of food down today, and that she seemed to be happy, seemed to be more like her old self – this is a mom who’s  trying to put the best spin on her daughter’s life, trying to keep herself up, trying to keep her husband up, trying to keep Tracy’s care-givers up. You’re not going to write the most pessimistic things in there, but there were some pretty pessimistic entries…

Brayford went on to question what sort of life it would be for Tracy if they continued to compromise her body with more operations, and how the need for the drastic hip operation had been such a shock to both parents: it was unthinkable! But what other options were there?

And one of the things I invite you, as you’re sitting there deliberating, think about coming back here, and looking Bob Latimer in the eye, and saying you’re either guilty or not guilty, and I urge you to render a verdict you feel is genuine, that is  honest, and that you can be proud that you rendered that verdict, that in your mind it is the right lawful verdict to render in this case. I hope the verdict is in favour of the Defence – it has great consequences for Bob Latimer.

Although I may understand the law one way, and Mr. Brayford may understand it another, His Lordship will tell you what the law is, and it’s your duty to apply the law as he states it, and not as Mr. Brayford might think, and certainly not as I might think! So if I do make those comments, and it turns out that my view of the law doesn’t accord with that of His Lordship, you must listen and apply what he says, because ultimately your job, although it’s not a pleasant job, it’s a job that has rules, it’s a job you must do by listening to the evidence, considering the evidence, using the evidence you heard to decide if the essential facts are proven, and then applying those facts to the law that His Lordship will state, and the verdict is what the verdict is.

The offence that the accused is charged with today is second degree murder, which is committed when a person causes the death of another person by an unlawful act and, in doing so, meant to cause that death. That’s what second degree murder is, nothing more and it’s nothing less.

Tracy was a human being who had life, could express pleasure, who could express joy, who could express pain, who could smile, who could laugh, who could cry, who could interact with her family, who could interact with her care givers.

She was a human being who could go to birthday parties, and Halloween parties, and Christmas parties. She could ride the school bus every day, she rode it every day in the last two weeks of her life to the very Friday before she died. She was a human being who could go to the circus, who could react to the sight of animals, who could experience a jacuzzi bath. She was a person who could experience life in her own way. As her mother said, Tracy was not just muscle and bone.

I submit to you that Tracy was a little girl, a human being whose life had purpose, whose life had meaning . . . Mrs. Latimer testified that she wanted her own children to treat Tracy with respect, like any other person.

I submit she was no less a human being because she was completely dependent on others, that she would never walk or talk, and she was no less a human being because her life was simple and basic, like that of a three-month-old baby. She was no less a human being because she suffered pain when she moved. I submit to you that she was not in constant pain, you will not find that she had no joy in life at all in the last few years of her life. Pain, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit is a condition of life, not a reason for death.

As he had done in cross examination of Laura, Neufeld continued to quote Laura’s own words from the notebooks to make the case that Tracy was not so abnormal. Tracy went off to “school” and her mother even wanted her integrated into regular classes.

There’s no doubt that Tracy would face other problems in her life. She could face other problems, but who doesn’t, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? That’s life. No one’s life is perfect, there are ups and downs in every person’s life, every one of us will experience some pain in our lives, every one of us will experience joy in our lives. We’ll have good times and bad, we’ll have happy times and we’ll have sad times, we’ll have times of pain and times of pleasure.

On the evidence, I submit, you’ll find that Tracy was a fighter, she was a survivor, and that the surgery, although it was not perfect, it did help, she was straightened out, her colds and bronchitis nearly disappeared. Who is to say that she would not have done as well, or better, with the hip surgery? Must a person, like Tracy, die because of what another perceives her life is like? Must a person like Tracy die because another person cannot bear to watch her fight, and that can be motivated by love, and I don’t dispute that for a second? The answer, I submit, to these questions, is a plain and simple no.

The prosecutor continued to review the details about how Tracy had died. He pointed out that, at first, Latimer had misled the authorities about how she had died, claiming she had just died in her sleep in her bed, where an unsuspecting Laura discovered her. He hammered on the evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt what Latimer had done,

We are not here to try the reason the accused caused her death. You’re only here to determine if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused her death unlawfully, and in doing so meant to cause her death. Why he did so is not relevant to the issues the Crown must prove, and that you must decide. It doesn’t matter if he acted out of love or compassion, caring or concern, or at the other end of the spectrum, even if he acted out of hatred, which I’m not suggesting for a moment he did, it just wouldn’t matter, because if you find he caused her death by carbon monoxide poisoning, and meant to do it, the only verdict you can render is guilty of second degree murder – his reason for doing so is not relevant to that consideration.

Each of you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, swore an oath to render a true verdict according to the evidence and, as his Lordship told you at the beginning of the trial, you have a duty to uphold the law. You can only do that by applying the law to the facts that you find are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You are the last safeguard of the accused – he will not be convicted unless all 12 of you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the acts which are alleged against him, and that he meant to commit those acts. That’s his guarantee in this business.

But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he did what he’s alleged to have done, and that he meant to do it, for whatever reason, then you have a duty to find him guilty – because if people are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and then are not so found, society is doomed to anarchy, and eventually no one is safe from criminal acts.

You may not, you may not act out of prejudice towards the accused in this case; you may not act out of sympathy for him. You may not act out of prejudice towards Tracy, and you may not act out of sympathy for her

Our jury system requires that you determine the facts and apply them to the law, and the verdict must flow from that and only that. If we ever step away from that people could be convicted or acquitted because of prejudice or sympathy toward them or the victim, and that would do great damage to the law, and it would not uphold the law. People must be convicted because the evidence is there, and if the evidence doesn’t satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must be acquitted, that’s the rules, that’s the system I stand here as a part of.

But, it should be mentioned here, that’s not exactly the rules and that’s not exactly the system. Jury independence and the right to nullify the law has been a part of English-based legal systems since the trial, in Britain, of William Penn in 1670. And when Henry Morgentaler openly broke the law in carrying out abortions that were illegal at the time, and was found not guilty, the legal system in Canada did not collapse into anarchy. But Brayford could say nothing about this, because that’s the rules – nullification cannot be mentioned – and that’s the system in Canada.

What you’re asked to do, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is straightforward but not always pleasant. This is not a pleasant case, this is a tragic case, but the facts are clear. . . the only verdict you can be proud of, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is a verdict that flows from the evidence, applied to the law.

Your verdict must be based on your objective assessment of all of the evidence, not just part of it, you must look at it totally. You can’t just look at part of it. You can’t just select parts of it that you maybe consider necessary to reach your verdict …

While it is desirable in most trials,  that the jury follows the law, the “must” in the judge’s statement misrepresents and underestimates the power of juries; it is very common for judges to do this.

The case against Robert Latimer is indeed a very unusual one, when compared to most trials that involve an accusation of murder. The Crown, for example, while it alleges that Mr. Latimer’s actions toward his daughter Tracy amount to murder, also conceded that it was motivated by love and compassion. In nearly all murder charges that we see before this court, the accused is alleged to have acted out of some malevolent or evil or malicious purpose in taking the victim’s life. It’s what we used to call malice aforethought in our old definition of murder. That’s not the case here, and this trial is therefore founded on a very different premise than most that we see in the courts.

The Judge further reviewed the law and then proceeded to review the evidence which came up in testimony earlier. In particular he mentioned the evidence concerning the notebooks in which Laura frequently referred to Tracy as a “happy girl:”

Counsel has argued that these entries in some way contradict Laura Latimer’s testimony that after the back surgery Tracy’s life, and her lifestyle, wasn’t as happy as it had been before the operation. In fairness to Mrs. Latimer, I counted about 35 entries by her in the witness box. We don’t know how many other entries there were, or what they said. It is for you to say, ladies and gentlemen, but 35 entries over a period of 19 months may not paint a picture of Tracy’s health and happiness that is complete, and I suggest that you should probably, although it is a matter for you, entirely for you, take a critical look at that argument.

As I understand the Crown’s position, it is that the evidence is clear that Mr. Latimer took his daughter’s life. The Crown admits that he may have done so out of compassion and concern that it was the only way that he could relieve her of her pain. But the Crown says that is irrelevant to the law which defines an act of murder as where a person who causes the death of a human being and means to cause his or her death.

The Crown’s position, simply stated, is that they have proven Mr. Latimer caused the death of his daughter beyond a reasonable doubt, and that he intended to do it, and that you must therefore do your duty and find him guilty of an act of murder.

The Defence position is that this is not as simple a matter as the Crown suggests. Counsel asks you to study and consider all of the evidence brought forward by the Crown and the Defence in an effort to explain to you the numerous factors which led to Tracy’s death. He argued that you must consider what Mr. Latimer did against the backdrop of this – the tragic nature of this little girl’s life, and approach your decision with fairness and compassion and understanding and you should be left with a reasonable doubt and conclude that this was not an act of murder on Mr. Latimer’s part.

So, the issue for you comes down to this: did Mr. Latimer commit an act of murder when he put Tracy to sleep, or did he not? It is for you to say, but you have only two choices. You must find him either guilty or that he was not guilty.

Now the judge appeared to almost be inviting nullification. a He said, “did Mr. Latimer commit an act of murder…it is for you to say.” He could have stressed following the law – which would entail a guilty verdict, but he said instead that the verdict was up to them. But would the jury pick up on this, or would they still feel obliged to follow the law? The judge went a considerable distance in explaining the freedom of a jury, probably further than most judges would have gone, but one can still imagine confusion and uncertainty in the juryroom about this, in the absence of having the defence, specifically addressing the matter of nullification. In his final comments Justice Noble added, “it is your duty to follow and obey your own conscience …you have a right to disagree.” He said “conscience,” not “the law.”

My concern, in summarizing the Defence case, is that you may have left them with the impression that there’s something in the Defence case that answers the clear facts that happened here – that there’s something that happened that somehow still justifies what he did …

Well, essentially, that is what the Defence was saying.

Fair enough, but that’s not a defence to murder. I mean it just isn’t.

Well, that’s for the jury, it’s not for me. I can’t tell them what to decide.

Not long after the jury retired and Justice Noble and the lawyers discussed the Justice’s instructions to the jury, a query came from the jury. They asked Justice Noble a key and revealing question (as read by the Justice).

“Is there any possible way we can have an input into the sentencing?” My answer to that is not at this time. We might discuss it with them later. I don’t know whether I should say any more than that.

This development was of immediate concern to the Prosecutor, for two reasons. The first is that it indicated that there was some sympathy for Latimer – otherwise why would they be concerned about the length of sentence? Secondly, the prosecutor did not want the jury to know about the severity of the minimum sentence for second degree murder, which was 10 years before full parole. Some unclear comments were made in an exchange between the judge and the two lawyers – about whether or not the information on sentencing should be given to the jury.  Then Justice Noble tried to take a clear position on when this information should be given to the jury, following what he believed to be standard practice in such matters.

It depends. After they’ve rendered a verdict, no?

Yeah, I think you have to say that.

I think it would be misleading – I think they should be told that there is a minimum punishment described by law.

Well, I thought I would say, in answer to this, Mr. Brayford, that that’s a matter I may or may not discuss with you later and leave it at that. Why get into details? Do you want me to get into that?

I think they should be told there is a minimum punishment prescribed by law, and that they will not be able to recommend some sentence below that.

Would – I mean I’m not sure. I mean this is a little difficult to deal with, but I – I mean, if you’re going to tell them something, then they should be told what the law prescribes. I don’t – like I’m really hesitant to have them told about…

I really don’t want to tell them what the law prescribes by way of penalty in this matter, because it’s none of their business.

No, it isn’t.

And they should really make a decision without knowing that.

Absolutely, and that’s – I think that’s the law.

So how do I refer to that section without indicating to them what the sentence is?

Yeah, I don’t think you – I guess the Criminal Code  does permit them to have some input into the minimum.

But it only permits that after they bring in a verdict.

Yeah, they have to decide. I mean I think….

They have to decide first.

Is it not safer to tell them that – I don’t know, I’m thinking it’s safer to tell them that it’s none of their business, but I don’t think you want to slap them in the face either, I don’t think you can do that.

Well, this is one those unwritten rules, quite frankly my Lord, that to my way of thinking really doesn’t make sense. I can’t imagine a trial judge deciding a case without knowing what penalty he or she might have to impose, and I know that in the past we have not told juries, but …

No, for the obvious reason that we don’t want to influence them one way or the other.

Yeah, and I guess that would be my concern.

But, if it’s indirectly influencing them the other way, they become aware of the false view that they might be able to say, okay, guilty, but, you know, you get to go home. I believe that, if we’re not going to tell them what the actual law is, we should at least tell them that there is a minimum punishment that you are not allowed to consider in your deliberations.

I’m afraid that would influence them – that’s what I’m afraid of.

Yeah, I’m …

I mean that’s why we avoid that, and in fact in some – I didn’t say it today – but sometimes we instruct juries to ignore that, that’s not your concern.

Right.

It’s a matter for the Court, for the Judge.

Once a verdict is reached.

What I could say, I suppose, is that sentencing is a matter for the judge, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that I may ask them for some input into the sentence.

That still gives them the false impression, My Lord, that they have … I believe that might give them the false impression that they might be able, through a recommendation of leniency, to alleviate it by just making a recommendation for mercy, which we know won’t have a whole lot of impact on the minimum punishment, unless there’s a Constitutional exemption, or something of that nature. So I think that would be an unfairness to the accused…

Well okay, what I’m going to do then is, I’m going to say to them I’m not going to answer that question until after you’ve rendered a verdict. How’s that? That’s about as neutral as you can get.

Well, maybe the safest thing, and I throw this out, maybe the safest thing is if you could simply tell them there’s something you forgot to tell them in the original charge to the jury, because you’ve said now that, from time to time, you do tell juries that the penalty is not for them – is that sort of a neutral way of …

Yeah.

Well, I guess the position of the Defence, My Lord, is that we would ask that they simply be told exactly what the penalty provisions are, and exactly what the procedure would be if there was a conviction.

I disagree.

I think it would be appealable. I can’t think I should do it.

And with that decision by Justice Noble the hope for a not-guilty verdict was more or less gone. Ten years in prison for Mr. Latimer was looking more and more likely.

The Judge’s adherence to legal standards in refusing to inform the jury about the mandatory punishment that would follow a guilty verdict was understandable – that is the sort of thing judges often do. They are fond of saying that such matters are not the jury’s business. And that is true if one sees the duty of a jury as simply applying the law. But what if one has a larger view of the purpose of juries – that they are the last line of defence against state power, the last voice that can prevent an injustice, the last stop before conviction of, say, an innocent who is technically guilty of a crime – then should not juries be informed of any information relevant to this larger role? It is hard to see any adequate justification for this lack of candour by judges; after all, it is simply a matter of telling a highly relevant truth. How did this become forbidden in our legal system?

As Mr. Brayford pointed out early in this exchange, it is hard to imagine a judge in a judge-only trial not knowing, and not being influenced by the penalties entailed in any trial they presided over. But the accused in a jury trial is not entitled to be judged by a fully informed body of jurors.

The judge’s position on informing the Jury actually worsened several minutes later when he formulated his actual statement on punishment to the jurors, first restating the question they had posed to him.

“Is there any possible way we can have input to a recommendation for sentencing?” I should have told you when I charged you, because I sometimes do this, but not in every case, that the penalty in any of these charges is not the concern of the jury. Your concern is, as I said, the guilt or innocence of the accused. You must reach – that’s your job – you reach that conclusion, and you don’t concern yourself with what the penalty might be. We say that because we don’t want you to be influenced one way or the other with what that penalty is. So it might be that later once you have reached a verdict, we will have some discussions about that, but not at this stage of the game. You must just carry on and answer the question that was put to you, okay. All right, I guess that’s it.

That was it – there went Robert Latimer’s chance for freedom. It appeared that, to these jurors, a guilty verdict was legally correct, based on the evidence, but a severe penalty would not be right. They might opt for a not guilty verdict if they knew about the mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years. But Justice Noble killed any chance of that. He not only refused to reveal to the jury what is open and public knowledge about the severe sentence Latimer would receive if convicted, he went further in a misleading suggestion that later, after the verdict, the jury could have some meaningful say in sentencing.  

Brayford was dismayed by the Justice’s comments, and he spoke after the jury retired again for their deliberations:

. . . the last few words Your Lordship said might leave the jurors with the idea that this all  – the penalty – can be handled after the verdict, and we know that the minimum penalty is going to be life imprisonment, with no parole for 10 years, as a starting point.  And I would suggest that, given the apparent total lack of appreciation of what the penalty is going to be, that, if that’s the only thing they were told at this stage  – that this idea that there could be some discussion possibly, after the verdict, might lead them to have the reassurance that they could return a verdict of guilty …

Well, I don’t think that would nearly as much influence as you’re suggesting, which is to tell them what the minimum sentence is.

The only thing, though, is that the influence that we are fearful might befall the situation will be against my client, if they don’t know what the penalty is – clearly the only reason they want to know what the penalty is, if they think there is going to be some ability to be lenient, then it might lead to a conviction; if they think the penalty is going to be too harsh it  might lead to an acquittal.

You may be overstating it Mr. Brayford.

Well, the fact that they would ask at such a critical juncture, that particular question, obviously causes the Defence a great deal of concern – obviously penalty is something that …

No, I don’t blame you for being concerned, but I think you’re overstating it. I mean the question, at this stage of the game, may have no relevance at all. And I did make the point they must not concern themselves with it.

I appreciate that Your Lordship gets confronted with these questions, and you’re not working from a script, but it’s the last few words that I would suggest might give the jurors reassurance that they could convict, and that there could be some leniency exercised. And in the last go around, I know, at least it was my perception, that the jurors were stunned, horrified, and that the public was horrified by the sentence …

Brayford here is referring to the first trial (declared a mistrial), when the jurors found Latimer guilty but were shocked when they learned of the mandatory minimum penalty, after the verdict.

Well, that’s another issue. I surely can’t get into that though, because what you’re suggesting is, in my view, appealable, it would be grounds for appeal if I told them what the sentence was.

The Judge seems to be consistently missing the point here. He had an argument, based on past practice, that the jury should not be told of the mandatory sentence. That is questionable but at least it is a legitimate argument. But what Brayford is really going after at this point is the Judge’s statement that the jury would have the opportunity to discuss sentencing after conviction. The Judge was in a bind here, because, having made that unwise statement about the jury influencing the verdict, he could not now go back to them and explain the problem with the statement – that any discussion of leniency would involve only time beyond the 10-year minimum – without revealing information about that minimum, which he felt would constitute grounds for an appeal. So he just chose to dismiss the matter as of little importance.

I guess the difficulty, as the Defence sees it, is that the words right at the end of the answer to their question, we really see as being that reassurance they were looking for.

How could I correct it, even if I was wrong?

Well…

I’m not suggesting to you I think it was wrong, but how could I correct it?

I guess, as Your Lordship notes, our first preference was that, because of what’s gone on, that they simply be told the law, but I think it would be hard for the Defence to complain if Your Lordship simply said to them, you’re not allowed to consider penalty in your deliberations.

That’s what I said.

And, My Lord, I agree, but the last few words that were added after that seem to …

I understand your argument, but in my judgment that’s not going to make any difference. I said they mustn’t concern themselves with penalty in their deliberations at all, and that’s the law and that’s the way they should do it. And those last few words, which merely suggest we may talk about it later, I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

I would suggest that gives them reassurance, an incorrect reassurance, that there might be some compassion shown on penalty.

How do you expect me to take the words back? They’ve heard them.

Well, I think we’re left now with a situation where – that we shouldn’t put blinders on them, that they should be told …

I’m not going to do that, Mr. Brayford. I have already told you that. I am not going to tell them what the minimum penalty is.

Well, as an alternative, I would request that Your Lordship advise them that there is a minimum penalty to this, but that we are not supposed to be discussing penalty at this stage, so that you’re not going to get into discussing it.

Well, if I – I already told them they’re not to take it into account. If I tell them there’s a minimum penalty, then I’m getting into the whole question of penalty. I don’t want to do that, because I think it’s – it’s not something we should be doing at this stage, to begin with. We’re forced to, you know, if the verdict is one way, we  have to deal with it, but I haven’t suggested to them in any way that – I have said to them carry on and make your judgment on the question that was put to them, and after that, well, I suppose we’ll have – depending on what it is, we’ll have to deal with it. But I think I – if I do what you suggest, I’ll only make it worse, if there is anything wrong with what I said to them.

Well, you make it a lot better, from the Defence’s perspective.  If there’s any prejudice here, I think my learned friend would have to agree, it’s clearly the Defence that is prejudiced.

Well, I did not ask the question – they asked it.

Oh no, but I’m talking about the answers that were given.

Is there any prejudice in me telling them that they mustn’t concern themselves with penalty?

That’s not the part that we …

They must reach their verdict on the evidence, and not concern themselves about it. What more could I say?

That’s not the point – not telling the jury is not the way we would like it to be, but we agree with Your Lordship on that part. It’s the problem that there’s this little bit of a carrot that was given to them that, if there is a verdict, that perhaps sentencing can be dealt with later.

Yeah, I note your objection, Mr. Brayford, but I don’t think I understand it. I don’t think there is a carrot there, and I suppose, if I’m wrong about it, somebody else will tell me that eventually. I don’t think I can correct it without making it a whole lot worse.

That’s my view, so I think we’ll leave it, Mr. Brayford.

Justice Noble, I’ll tell you that you were wrong about this, and I think you knew it The mistake was in the statement you made to the jury, the statement Mr. Bradford was so upset about, the statement that suggested the jury would have the opportunity to influence sentencing

The power of a jury is considerable; it is the power to decide on a verdict of guilty or not guilty.  But the power is fleeting – it disappears completely at the moment the verdict is read. The jury can subsequently give recommendations, but it has no power over what is done with those recommendations. And, Justice Noble, you misled the jury about this.

Is everybody here?

Believe so, My Lord.

Would you stand up, please?

How say you, is the accused guilty or not guilty?

Guilty.

No, no, no, no.

It’s okay. It’s okay. (Then, leaving the courtroom in handcuffs) I thought I’d get at least one vote, but I guess not.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you’re not quite finished, so I can’t just release you yet. Under the provisions of the Criminal Code, because you have found the accused guilty of second degree murder, I am obliged to sentence him to imprisonment for life … but before I determine how many years, which cannot be less than 10, he should serve before he’s eligible for parole, which cannot be more than 25.

So what I’m asking you to do is to go back to the jury room for a bit, and then tell me if you have any recommendation to make and, if so, what. It’s only a recommendation, and it is apparently designed to assist me in reaching some conclusion about the number of years he would have to serve in his sentence before he was eligible for parole… so if  you would retire now, and take a few minutes and discuss this, and then let us know …

But, as they say, it was all over now, but for the shouting. At one point in the subsequent proceedings Mark Brayford said “9,000 people phoned in and 82% disagreed with the minimum punishment for Robert Latimer.” The jury recommended a one-year sentence, urging the judge to override the ten-year mandatory minimum, and he actually tried to do that, but the full ten years was restored on appeal court. The Supreme Court heard the case and, finding no mistakes in law, left the verdict and sentence intact. On January 18, 2000, Robert Latimer began serving his sentence at a high security prison in Alberta.