Canadian Crime News
A collection of crime news stories with links from across Canada. Included are bits of commentary and tidbits of advice from a threat assessment specialist.
Defence Submissions for George Arsoniadis
The Other Side: 
Criminal Defence Attorney Paul O'Marra has been doing a fine job of advocating for his client and presenting his case throughout this trial.
The murder trial of George Arsoniadis is full of gruesome and horrific facts that, on the face of things, seem irrational and inexplicable. O'Marra, in his finesse has humanized his client who would otherwise be presented as an utter monster. This is crucial in a jury trial.
In an Ontario courtroom today, O'Marra told the jury that George Arsoniadis caused the death of Helen Arsoniadis in self-defence. He told the jury that his client should not be punished for his "repugnant" behaviour following Helen's death.
According to section 182 (b) of the Criminal Code, it is an indictable offence to "improperly or indecently interfere with or offer any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not".
George Arsoniadis should face the consequences for dismembering his sister. Whether or not that is up to this jury depends on whether or not a charge has been laid pursuant to the appropriate section.
O'Marra's actual point is, in part, that George Arsoniadis should not receive the punishment due a murderer if he committed a crime that is not murder. No matter how gruesome or nightmarish the defendant's behaviour after the death, it still doesn't prove murder. He re-iterated the point by saying that Mr. Arsoniadis was not on trial for his conduct after Helen's death.
He's exactly right. George Arsoniadis is not on trial for being cold or emotionally detached. He's not on trial for going to work as though nothing was going on. He's not on trial for any or even all of the gory details the jury heard about his behaviour after Helen's death. And none of the above proves that he committed the crime of murder.
O'Marra said there is no evidence that his client intended to murder the victim.
In most cases before the court, the Crown has to prove mens rea, meaning the mental element of the offence as well as the act itself. Intent to kill does not have to mean weeks, days, or even hours of planning. Intent to kill can arise in a very short time frame. The judge will explain to the jury the applicable laws and meanings when he gives them instructions tomorrow.
The case that O'Marra presented throughout the trial included testimony from independent witnesses through whom it was shown that the victim, Helen Arsoniadis, was volatile, prone to angry outbursts and violent behaviour. After hearing from those witnesses, the notion of self-defence became quite plausible. Even the most staunch and vociferous victim advocate would have to concede the very real possibility that Helen Arsoniadis did attack her brother.
It's interesting to watch counsel argue the same facts and come up with two totally different interpretations of things. O'Marra was not pleased that Goodman (for the Crown) characterized Helen's behaviour as "minor personality difficulties" when, according to O'Marra (and borne out by the facts), Helen often flew into violent and aggressive outbursts unprovoked. That little exchange could just as easily been the other way around with a defence attorney claiming his client's bad behaviours were "minor personality difficulties" and the Crown arguing back that the accused flew into violent and aggressive outbursts.
At one point, Helen was removed from her home for assaulting her mother. That goes far beyond "minor personality difficulties".
The only point to bringing up Helen's aggression is to show that the defendant's claim of self-defence is not out of the ball park.
As good a job as O'Marra has done, his client still has two big problems.
He never called for help when he knew that Helen was not breathing but still alive.
He didn't even try to revive her for several minutes. He left her there on the floor, knowing she wasn't breathing.
Those two problems spell murder, or at the very least, manslaughter.
The proof? The proof came right from the defendant's mouth while he was on the witness stand.
For those of you following this: Tomorrow, after the jury goes out, we'll put a "ticker" on the top of the blog page. When the jury comes back with a verdict, we'll put it right on the ticker so you don't have to search through posts for it.
Criminal Defence Attorney Paul O'Marra has been doing a fine job of advocating for his client and presenting his case throughout this trial.
The murder trial of George Arsoniadis is full of gruesome and horrific facts that, on the face of things, seem irrational and inexplicable. O'Marra, in his finesse has humanized his client who would otherwise be presented as an utter monster. This is crucial in a jury trial.
In an Ontario courtroom today, O'Marra told the jury that George Arsoniadis caused the death of Helen Arsoniadis in self-defence. He told the jury that his client should not be punished for his "repugnant" behaviour following Helen's death.
According to section 182 (b) of the Criminal Code, it is an indictable offence to "improperly or indecently interfere with or offer any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not".
George Arsoniadis should face the consequences for dismembering his sister. Whether or not that is up to this jury depends on whether or not a charge has been laid pursuant to the appropriate section.
O'Marra's actual point is, in part, that George Arsoniadis should not receive the punishment due a murderer if he committed a crime that is not murder. No matter how gruesome or nightmarish the defendant's behaviour after the death, it still doesn't prove murder. He re-iterated the point by saying that Mr. Arsoniadis was not on trial for his conduct after Helen's death.
He's exactly right. George Arsoniadis is not on trial for being cold or emotionally detached. He's not on trial for going to work as though nothing was going on. He's not on trial for any or even all of the gory details the jury heard about his behaviour after Helen's death. And none of the above proves that he committed the crime of murder.
O'Marra said there is no evidence that his client intended to murder the victim.
In most cases before the court, the Crown has to prove mens rea, meaning the mental element of the offence as well as the act itself. Intent to kill does not have to mean weeks, days, or even hours of planning. Intent to kill can arise in a very short time frame. The judge will explain to the jury the applicable laws and meanings when he gives them instructions tomorrow.
The case that O'Marra presented throughout the trial included testimony from independent witnesses through whom it was shown that the victim, Helen Arsoniadis, was volatile, prone to angry outbursts and violent behaviour. After hearing from those witnesses, the notion of self-defence became quite plausible. Even the most staunch and vociferous victim advocate would have to concede the very real possibility that Helen Arsoniadis did attack her brother.
It's interesting to watch counsel argue the same facts and come up with two totally different interpretations of things. O'Marra was not pleased that Goodman (for the Crown) characterized Helen's behaviour as "minor personality difficulties" when, according to O'Marra (and borne out by the facts), Helen often flew into violent and aggressive outbursts unprovoked. That little exchange could just as easily been the other way around with a defence attorney claiming his client's bad behaviours were "minor personality difficulties" and the Crown arguing back that the accused flew into violent and aggressive outbursts.
At one point, Helen was removed from her home for assaulting her mother. That goes far beyond "minor personality difficulties".
The only point to bringing up Helen's aggression is to show that the defendant's claim of self-defence is not out of the ball park.
As good a job as O'Marra has done, his client still has two big problems.
He never called for help when he knew that Helen was not breathing but still alive.
He didn't even try to revive her for several minutes. He left her there on the floor, knowing she wasn't breathing.
Those two problems spell murder, or at the very least, manslaughter.
The proof? The proof came right from the defendant's mouth while he was on the witness stand.
For those of you following this: Tomorrow, after the jury goes out, we'll put a "ticker" on the top of the blog page. When the jury comes back with a verdict, we'll put it right on the ticker so you don't have to search through posts for it.
Related Articles
Comments
Be the first to leave a comment!
About the Author
55 Kudos
+ Kudo
FemmedeBat
Blog: Threat Assessment and ManagementInterests: Neurobiology, canadian crime, psychology
People in Pictures
Top Current Events Articles
 |
Video: 'Golden Girl' Betty White Calls Palin a 'Crazy B----'
And I don't think she was quoting Buck Cherry.
|
 |
La Pequena Strikes Again With Weirdest Hillary Clinton Video Yet
Consider this your daily dose of strange.
|
 |
Joe Biden Introduced as John McCain
Before YouTube, it was the little things like this we all missed.
|
Popular Current Events Zines
