Is the Smith Inquiry casting a shadow over this trial?
We're closely following this trial because depending on the ruling it could have a significant impact on your expectation of privacy when using the internet.
According to the Globe and Mail report, Ontario Superior Court Judge Robert Clark is moving cautiously before declaring Russ Doucet an expert witness (forensics and internet-use specialist).
You may recall the Ontario government last year ordered a public Coroner's Inquiry into the actions of Dr. Charles Smith. For 24 years he worked at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children where he was long regarded as one of Canada's best forensic child pathologists.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiApLbNMqkPwTjP-pOtjsroCL7FG-DrSiliFUs8uH89Xp684AKA-029V3p7zGba57uwh34dYXKVBNc96ICh6aPvRjItqMVJM8zYPAOaz2RiYqI8pJXw1YzFEafoNpGkj_BW13qq/s320/smith-charles070419.jpg)
After reviewing 45 cases in which Dr. Smith had concluded the cause of death was either homicide or criminally suspicious, the Coroner's Review ruled a finding of foul play was questionable in 20 instances 13 of which had subsequently resulted in criminal convictions. Several people have been released from jail only one still remains behind bars.
The Inquiry found there was no specific training associated with being designated a child pathologist. Further, a system of checks and balances was lacking to prevent these kinds of errors. No doubt the situation was further exacerbated by Dr. Smith's disorganized work habits.
Judges give a lot of credence to expert witnesses which is probably why Judge Clark is moving carefully before designating Mr. Doucet as such.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Expert In Child-Porn Case Admits His Résumé Had Mistakes
Christie Blatchford
The Globe and Mail
April 11, 2008
Page 7
cblatchford@globeandmail.com
Russ Doucet, who has worked in a variety of capacities in the computer and information technology fields for 15 years, was being questioned about his purported expertise by Crown prosecutor Allison Dellandrea at the trial of Toronto actor Robert Smith, who is pleading not guilty to charges of possessing child pornography and making it available online.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj3uR5BH87IWvVF7hIZdCICgaKBrJG67os6GgbA973FO_KQob3InwQCUqn8GRmHAcTkNKaJ92X0FazVEnjUQRlQmg9PaUfbn9-Zpxsh591ocJGett9QMoDapCh8y_zqfDE_1J6/s320/robertsmith210.jpg)
Robert Smith
Ms. Dellandrea told Ontario Superior Court Judge Robert Clark that because of the errors, which Mr. Doucet said he made inadvertently and for which he apologized, the whole of his proposed testimony should be "viewed with suspicion" such that he shouldn't be allowed to give the opinion evidence only experts can offer.
Mr. Doucet agreed that the language in the first version of his curriculum vitae appeared to say he had worked "with" police in certain cases; a later version, revised only after Ms. Dellandrea told his lawyer she was contesting his qualifications, added the words "in the capacity of defence expert."
The document also said he was qualified as an expert by a court in one case, when he wasn't; the later version replaced that court case with another.
Mr. Doucet acknowledged the mistakes, said he was "chagrined to realize" he had been misleading, but then curiously described a C.V. as "a living document."
He is being offered as a computer forensics and Internet-use specialist by Mr. Smith's lawyer, Cindy Wasser, who is challenging the validity of two search warrants executed by Toronto police in their investigation of her client.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkbQ8uojyn4UP8DRhPjcyqYYtSYPgoPA0p_mwPVVlo_589SQ01OBajzGQYlPm48fHAKh3Ni2aDCyoOCu_HZ1bWm3cODMepWN2R9dMPcLL3_JZ6_NMhJyPFk9Rf_obFMQO6omDx/s320/b.200.150.16777215.0.stories.April2007.Apr30.cindy-wasser.jpg)
If allowed to testify, Mr. Doucet would suggest that the officers swearing the first warrant allegedly misled the justice of the peace by not telling him there was a possible "innocent" explanation for the many images of child sexual abuse discovered on Mr. Smith's computer.
Mr. Doucet said yesterday that such images sometimes are innocently retrieved by users searching the Web with even innocuous keywords, and that users "frequently" install software in such a hurry they take shortcuts and may not even look at the content of the files.
At the time of Mr. Smith's arrest, police alleged they found on the computer more than 1,000 electronic files, including movies and pictures, of children as young as a year engaged in sexual activity.
Many of these files were allegedly also saved on computer discs, an issue that would not appear to be covered by Mr. Doucet's accidental download theory.
If the Bell warrant were deemed by the judge to violate Mr. Smith's Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure and to be invalid, the later one, which was based in part on the so-called subscriber information gleaned from it, would also be tossed.
Mr. Doucet was allowed to testify about his credentials because Judge Clark ruled "provisionally" that Mr. Smith has legal standing to challenge the Bell warrant so he could hear arguments from the lawyers. Because this is a judge-alone trial, not being held before a jury, the voir dire hearing can be reported.
Judge Clark said several times yesterday that he was "startled" or "troubled" by some of Mr. Doucet's answers, and that the misleading first version of his C.V. "at the very least shows a very cavalier attitude ... it's a bit disturbing even if there was no intent to deceive."
Ms. Wasser, however, argued that "there wasn't an attempt to hide it [the misleading résumé] but to fix it ... it shouldn't have any effect on whether he has specific knowledge in this area."
The judge will rule on whether Mr. Doucet can testify as an expert and, if so, if he will impose limits upon his evidence, today.
1 Comments:
PLEASE MR. PIEUK IF YOU CAN PUBLISH THIS ON YOUR WEBSITE...
THIS MAN IS A LAWYER TO WATCH OUT FOR
PAUL LASKO:
Case 96-23
PAUL FREDERICK LASKO
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Called to the Bar
June 25, 1976
Particulars of Charges
Professional Misconduct (1 count)
misleading client
Date of Hearing
September 26, 1996
Panel
Gregory Brodsky, Q.C. (Chair)
Patrick Riley
Victory Bellay
Disposition
Reprimand
$1, 881.98 costs
Counsel
S.F. Vincent for The Law Society of Manitoba
B. Krawchuk, Q.C. for the member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misleading Client
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts
Mr. Lasko appeared before the Discipline Committee on September 26, 1996. Mr. Lasko represented a client on a summary conviction appeal. The client was unable to attend the appeal. Mr. Lasko did not attend Court at the scheduled time. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
The client called Mr. Lasko to inquire as to the outcome of the appeal. Mr. Lasko advised his client that her appeal had been dismissed because she was not present and the judge required that she be present in Court. The client obtained a transcript of the appeal hearing and learned that her appeal had been dismissed because Mr. Lasko was not present.
The client complained to the Law Society that Mr. Lasko had failed to appear and that he fabricated a story about what took place in Court. Mr. Lasko immediately acknowledged to the Law Society that he did lead his client to believe that her appeal was dismissed because she could not attend and not because he had confused the time set for the appeal.
Decision and Comments
Mr. Lasko pled guilty to the charge and the Committee accepted that there was professional misconduct. The Committee took into account that Mr. Lasko did appear in Court late and unsuccessfully requested the judge to hear the appeal after it had been dismissed. The Committee also took into account that Mr. Lasko offered to attempt to rectify the situation and apply to the Court for a re-hearing of the appeal which offer was declined by his client.
Penalty
The Committee imposed a reprimand. It also noted that Mr. Lasko did not indicate a plea of guilty to the Citation at the first opportunity and ordered him to pay the full costs of the prosecution pursuant to Rule 64(7) in the sum of $1,881.98.
Post a Comment
<< Home