[LINK] "How to defend Michael Bryant"

[rfmcdonald]

In the Globe and Mail, veteran crime reporter Kirk Makin examines the likely defense strategies of Michael Bryant, charged in a bizarre Bloor Street West incident wherein an attacking cyclist died.

Will fingerprints or blood spatter found in Mr. Bryant's car crack the case wide open? Will a judge or jury subconsciously favour a charismatic politician over a grubby bike courier? Will psychiatric experts testify what was in Mr. Bryant's mind – murderous rage or sheer panic – when he tore across Bloor Street with Mr. Sheppard allegedly cleaving to the side of his Saab?

Based on the available evidence, many believe that the scales of justice tilt in Mr. Bryant's favour.

“It is going to come down to one or two key pieces of fact – probably things that nobody could see before – that will jump out and become the turning point,” said criminal lawyer Robert Rotenberg.

“I suspect the key thing is going to be what the cyclist said or did in those first few seconds,” said Mr. Rotenberg, also the author of the crime novel Old City Hall . “If he said or did something that could justify what happened … then I think Bryant is almost home free.”

One thing is sure. With a top B.C. lawyer – Richard Peck – running the prosecution, and a young star, Marie Henein, anchoring the defence team, the legal community expects nothing less than tactical brilliance. The Crown needs to prove that Mr. Bryant displayed “disproportionate force and extreme road rage,” Toronto defence counsel Steven Skurka said. “But the risk is being seen as needlessly prosecuting an innocent man.”

Mr. Skurka reasoned that the defence has the upper hand, since it need only show that Mr. Bryant was in mortal fear for his life: “For the defence, the daunting pressure is to lose a monumental case that surely deserved to be won,” he said.

Eyewitnesses who saw the tragedy unfold will likely play a modest role in the trial, since perceptions are often unreliable and memories are inherently faulty. Civilian witnesses are notoriously bad on things like speed, time and distance, many lawyers believe.

Forensic evidence, on the other hand, is the evidentiary gold standard. Accident reconstruction experts, for example, can use skid marks and vehicle impressions left on the mailbox and tree to show the speed and path of Mr. Bryant's car. Their findings may shed valuable light on whether or not Mr. Bryant was in control of the vehicle.

Most important, fingerprint experts will try to pinpoint every place Mr. Sheppard touched on the car. Should it turn out that he gripped the steering wheel – whether in panic or in fury – the defence stands a strong chance of persuading a jury that Mr. Sheppard inadvertently steered himself to his own death.

“The closer you get prints on the inside of the car, the more the pendulum of self-defence swings in Michael Bryant's favour,” Mr. Skurka said.