Trial for ex-world junior players now before judge alone after jurors accused defence of making fun of them

Defence cross-examines ex-world inferior teammate Steenbergen

Proceedings are backmost underway aft the luncheon interruption and defence lawyer Anna Zhang, who represents Michael McLeod, is cross-examining Steenbergen.

Zhang asks Steenbergen astir his clip astatine Jack’s bar.

He confirms the pistillate helium saw with McLeod successful the barroom was the aforesaid pistillate helium saw successful the edifice country wherever the alleged assaults occurred.

He besides agrees with a connection helium made successful 2018 — that the pistillate was “hanging off” of McLeod — and agreed with Zhang’s characterization that she was ‘fawning’ implicit him and was expressing involvement successful him.

The erstwhile hockey subordinate besides agreed with Zhang that determination was thing “unusual’ astir her demeanour and she wasn’t “falling over” successful presumption of her level of intoxication.

What assemblage didn't perceive — and different things we tin present report

There are important restrictions connected what the media tin and cannot study during a assemblage proceedings — peculiarly thing that happens portion the assemblage is not present.

These limitations beryllium to guarantee assemblage members are not prejudiced by thing they spot oregon perceive portion extracurricular of the courtroom.

And determination were surely a batch of developments passim this proceedings that we were incapable to archer you about, for conscionable that reason.

But with the assemblage present discharged and the determination to a judge-alone trial, we’re capable to propulsion backmost the curtain.

Our colleague, Kate Dubinski, has been covering the proceedings since Day 1. She has the wrong stories of what led to 2 antithetic juries being dismissed and each the different details of the proceedings we were antecedently incapable to report.

Check retired her latest dispatch here.

Formenton’s defence squad denies juror’s claim

While the tribunal is connected break, let’s spell backmost to that assertion that the defence squad for Alex Formenton was making amusive of respective jurors’ carnal appearances for a moment.

Both lawyers person emphatically denied they made immoderate specified comments.

Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding released a uncommon connection astir the allegations close aft the justice dismissed the assemblage this morning.

“In short, a juror came to someway judge that our courtroom demeanour was disrespectful of her. This was an unfortunate misinterpretation,” the brace said.

“No defence counsel would hazard alienating a juror, and thing could beryllium further from the information successful this instance. While it is existent that co-counsel volition talk with 1 different from clip to clip during a trial, this is commonplace. The precise thought of counsel making airy of a juror is illogical and runs straight antagonistic to our intent and function,” they continued.

During yesterday’s discussions astir however to determination up with the trial, Brown besides expressed that the allegation would beryllium definite to person a “chilling effect” connected the defence teams’ quality to efficaciously interact with the jury.

Court is present connected a recess. We’ll proceed our unrecorded sum erstwhile proceedings resume astir 2:15 p.m. ET.

Cal Foote’s lawyer, Julianna Greenspan, has been frustrated.

She’s been lasting up repeatedly to entity to Donkers’s repeated questioning of what Steenbergen said helium saw successful 2022 regarding Foote, and what he’s testifying to today.

Greenspan suggests Donkers is trying to pb Steenbergen, who besides seems somewhat exasperated with the enactment of questioning.

Ex-player continues grounds aft break

Steenbergen is facing much questions by the Crown astir his erstwhile connection successful 2022 regarding what helium saw Foote wearing astatine the clip Foote did the splits implicit E.M.’s face, arsenic tribunal has heard.

Steenbergen says the interviewers, astatine the time, whitethorn person “miswrote a mates of the statements I provided.”

Donkers is trying to suggest there’s a contradiction to what Steenbergen said successful 2022 astir what helium saw Foote wearing and what he’s testifying to today.

Carroccia determined the assemblage could nary longer beryllium impartial successful rendering a verdict and dismissed them.

Carroccia rejected the Crown’s submission of an enquiry of the jury, successful which the jurors would person been individually interviewed to find whether they held immoderate biases.

The Crown said they were reluctantly agreeing to justice alone, successful part, to debar having to retry the lawsuit and taxable the complainant, known arsenic E.M., to different circular of grounds and “further traumatize” her.

Why the proceedings is ‘judge alone’ and jurors were dismissed

Earlier this morning, Justice Maria Carroccia dismissed the jurors and it was agreed by some the defence and Crown that the proceedings would spell up with a justice unsocial trial.

This was sparked by a enactment sent to the justice by a juror.

The enactment outlined concerns that Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding, lawyers representing Formenton, appeared "every day" to beryllium whispering to each different and laughing "as if they are discussing our [jurors'] appearance" arsenic they entered the courtroom.

"This is unprofessional and unacceptable," the enactment said.

Court is connected greeting recess

We’ll resume coverage, with Steenbergen expected backmost to proceed testifying, astir noon ET.

WARNING: This station contains graphic details.

Donkers asks Steenbergen astir an interrogation successful the 2022 Hockey Canada probe successful which helium was asked astir what Foote was wearing when, arsenic tribunal heard earlier, helium did the splits implicit E.M.’s face.

Foote is accused of doing the splits implicit E.M.’s face, with his genitals grazing it, portion she was lying connected the ground.

In that interview, Steenbergen said Foote had taken his pants and underwear off.

But Steenbergen had testified helium couldn’t spot what Foote was wearing.

He stood by that today, saying helium wasn’t definite what helium was wearing and his reply successful 2022 was based connected proposition from the questioner.