Citizens to decide if Windsor Killer defendant goes to trial

Article content

In what is an extremely rare event in Ontario criminal courts, a randomly selected group of citizens sitting on the jury will decide this week whether an accused Windsor murderer is mentally fit to stand trial.

Article content

Raheem Washington, 28, faces charges of murder in the first degree and forcible confinement in the death three years ago of a man whose body was discovered in an apartment building at 395 University Ave. E.

Patrick Ducharme, a longtime Windsor criminal defense attorney who is not involved in the case, said he cannot recall such a jury aptitude hearing being held locally in his more than 40 years of legal practice.

The hearing, before Superior Court Judge Brian Dube and 12 jurors and two alternates, included testimony from two psychiatrists and the defendant himself. Closing speeches by defense attorneys and the Crown are expected Thursday morning, followed by the judge’s charge to the jury prior to their deliberations.

Article content

If the jury determines that Washington is fit for trial, a future date will be set. If citizens called to serve as a jury find that you are unfit, a “disposition hearing” will be held, with several options open to the judge, from issuing an “adjustment order” for treatment of up to 60 days to remitting the case to the Ontario Board of Review.

“It’s a really complicated issue,” said Assistant Crown Attorney Eric Costaris, who represents the prosecution in the case.

If the jury finds that Washington is in no condition to stand trial, “it is certainly not free to go,” Costaris told the Star.

Part of any disposition hearing is determining where the defendant will be housed next and what treatment, including medication and professional advice, he or she will be required to take.

Article content

“The physical condition can change,” Ducharme said, which is why medication and counseling can be ordered and then lead to a subsequent reevaluation of the defendant.

“I am saying that he is unfit and that he cannot train an attorney … to mount his defense,” Washington attorney Daniel Topp told the Star. The defense argument is that the defendant is not sufficiently mentally trained to understand the process in a criminal trial and therefore unable to properly mount a defense.

The most recent similar case in southern Ontario is that of Rohinie Bisesar, who stabbed a woman in the heart at a Shoppers Drug Mart in downtown Toronto’s PATH subway system on December 11, 2015. Newlywed Rosemarie Junor , 28, was a stranger on a Christmas shopping trip and standing at the makeup counter.

Article content

Bisesar, now 46, was charged with murder and became the subject of two aptitude hearings in 2018, the first resulting in a jury verdict of unfit to stand trial, one that resulted in a treatment order, before a second, different jury subsequently rendered its decision. suitable for judgment. In late 2018, a trial judge ruled that he was not criminally responsible and said there was “overwhelming evidence” that Bisesar had untreated schizophrenia and had been in the middle of an episode.

Last May, more than five years after being admitted to the hospital, the Ontario Board of Review ordered Bisesar to stay at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health “for now” to continue treatment. The board annually reviews the status of those who are not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial due to mental illness.

Article content

According to the Penal Code, aptitude hearings of those accused of murder must be held before a jury of citizens. Those accused of murder have the option of “re-election” to be tried only before a judge, but that avenue is not available to a defendant who is allegedly unable to adequately instruct his lawyer.

Much of the current case, including the evidence given this week and the details of the alleged murder on October 4, 2018, as well as the name of the deceased, is subject to court-imposed publication bans dating back to when co-defendant Lamar Day pleaded guilty. guilty of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. Judge Bruce Thomas, in his initial provisional ban, referred to the co-defendants’ upcoming court dealings and stated that “this restriction is necessary to protect the … rights of Raheem Washington.”

In extending that provisional publication ban, Judge Dube ruled Monday that “I believe there is a real and substantial risk to Mr. Washington’s right to a fair trial” if the evidence disclosed at this week’s aptitude hearing is made public.

[email protected]

twitter.com/schmidtcity