Wrote about arrest and trial for possession of marijuana, 1969. Different time and place, in terms of newsworthiness and gravity. Major defence being involuntary confession of 16 year old. Counter-argument presumably being that he knew what he was doing, and didn’t need a lawyer, despite asking for one. “Presumably” as referenced to how much is remembered, and how much is blocked out. Memories so selective.

Question de volonté. Question de crainte.

Do remember that judge made decision from the bench. Confession thrown out. Crown chose not to proceed thereafter. Basis of case being self-incrimination.

Major precedent, said mother. This had been happening all the time.

Don’t remember my own reaction. State of shock.

Parents waited for published news. After all, the arrest had made third page of newspaper.

No news. Arrest being newsworthy. Acquittal not so.

Mother called newspaper to complain. Not right to ignore acquittal, with such damage to reputation on publication of arrest.

News of acquittal published several days afterwards. Very small story, page 8.

Major precedent, said mother. This had been happening all the time.

Doesn’t happen like that anymore. At least in terms of confessions, or at least when made by sixteen year olds.

Though in terms of publishing news of acquittal, following publication of news of arrest…

About brucelarochelle
This entry was posted in Criminal Justice Issues, Ottawa Reflections. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s