WARNING: This article contains graphic content and may affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone affected by it.
The jury began its debate in the process of sexual assault against Canadian musician Jacob Hoghard, vocalist of the band Hedley. Here is some of the information that they were forbidden to hear during the trial in order to protect their impartiality.
Hogard faces a new charge
In March Hoghard was charged with sexual assault inflicting bodily harm on another applicant in an incident alleged to have taken place on Lake Kirkland, Ont., On 25 July 2016.
The case was briefly in court in nearby Hailebury, Ont., Last Thursday and is due to return on August 4.
Hogard’s lawyer, Megan Savard, said Tuesday that her client was innocent and denied the new charge, and that he would plead not guilty. She declined to comment further, as the case is in court.
WATCH Hogard faces a third charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm:
Jacob Hoghard’s new prosecutor is moving forward
WARNING: This video contains disturbing details. A third woman has accused former Hedley frontman Jacob Hogard of sexual assault.
The identity of the applicant in this case was also protected by a ban on publication.
Hadley plays at the Kirkland Lake Homecoming Festival on June 24, 2016.
Online charges around Hogard
Neither lawyers nor witnesses in the trial could have hinted to jurors about various anonymous allegations about Hogard that surfaced online before his arrest in 2018.
During the second week of the trial, the defense counsel asked the court to declare a violation after the second applicant briefly made other allegations.
The applicant testified that she had decided to report her meeting with Hogard to the police after seeing an online article investigating allegations of sexual assault involving the singer. She was immediately cut off by prosecutors before she could give details.
In the absence of the jury, counsel Savard argued that the applicant’s words had caused irreparable damage.
Ontario Supreme Court Judge Gillian Roberts found that the second applicant’s brief response would not “fatally hurt” the trial if the jurors received proper corrective instructions.
She then told the jurors that there was no evidence of allegations other than those of the two applicants, adding that “they should not speculate” on the matter.
The allegations, which are circulating online in 2018, have not been confirmed by The Canadian Press, nor have they been tested in court.
Hadley’s former drummer gave a video to police
Prosecutors tried to call Hadley’s former drummer, Chris Crippin, to testify that Hogard had at one point sent him a video of him masturbating in the plane’s bathroom.
In pre-trial hearings heard last year, Krypin, who was fired by the group in 2016, said he did not agree to receive the video, but kept it and eventually turned it over to police.
Crippin also said that Hogard, with whom he has a bad relationship, shared details about his sexual encounters with women. The drummer claims that at one point he assumed that Hogard was in degradation and the singer agreed. However, he said there was no indication that any of the actions described by Hogard were unanimous.
Jacob Hogard, left, poses with then-Hadley drummer Chris Crippin on the red carpet at the 2015 Juno Awards in Hamilton. Prosecutors tried to call Crippin to testify that Hogard at one point sent him a video of himself masturbating in the plane’s bathroom. (Peter Power / Canadian Press)
Roberts ruled that his testimony was inadmissible. The judge said that if jurors concluded that Hogard had sent the video, knowing that Crippin did not want to receive it, there was a risk that they would find that the musician was “the type of person willing to inflict his sexuality on others, regardless of their desires ”, which would have a“ significant ”detrimental effect.
Roberts also found that the comment on the humiliation posed a “real risk” that jurors would conclude that he was more likely to commit sexual violence because he liked to humiliate women.
A description of the masturbation video was included in an agreed statement of facts that was presented during the trial, but did not mention how the police obtained it.
Both applicants testified during the trial that Hogard had sent them a video of them masturbating.
Kripin’s account has not been tested in court.
Evidence of a haircut is prohibited
Prosecutors were barred from using what the judge considered “highly biased labels” such as trimming, luring, and possessing child pornography in front of a jury while discussing Hoghard’s interactions with the teenage complainant.
Prior to the trial, the defense tried to exclude some aspects of the teenager applicant’s expected evidence from the trial, including that she had exchanged messages with Hogard in which he “cultivated a trusting romantic relationship” and that they had exchanged sexual messages and nude photos.
Defense attorneys say the evidence could be misused by jurors to conclude that Hogard was more likely to have committed sexual assault.
The Crown said Hoghard’s interactions with the two applicants, which led to the alleged sexual assault, were “essential to the story” of how they ended up in his hotel room.
The judge ruled that the evidence was admissible, but said that the jurors could not be told that the young age of the teenage applicant made her allegations more serious or that some of these alleged interactions, if true, would also be crimes.
The defense was also allowed to cross-examine the applicants on any evidence relating to the texts raised by the Crown without lodging a separate appeal, part of the decision which was examined when the defense requested a cross-examination of the second applicant’s content. some of these texts during the trial.
The defense requested that the cases be heard separately
Hoghard’s lawyers twice tried to divide the case into separate trials, arguing that the evidence expected from the teenage complainant could affect the jury’s assessment of the evidence about the second applicant.
In an initial statement in 2020, the defense argued that “evidence of bad character” related to allegations about the teenage complainant could lead jurors to punish the singer because he appears to be a “bad guy”.
Roberts found that while jurors could “think very badly” of Hogard if they believed he had touched the teenager and sent her explicit texts, they would not accept that he was a rapist based on that evidence.
“I am pleased that the jury will understand that what happened in each hotel room is the focus of the process,” the judge wrote in his ruling.
It also found that the existence of a viable statement of such a fact – a process by which the Crown argued that jurors should be able to consider similarities in the accounts of the two applicants – supported a joint process.
The defense again tried to separate the two cases in February, arguing that the application of such facts was no longer viable, as Hogard planned to testify and “admit that specific actions described by the two applicants were part of his sexual repertoire. at the time of the charges. “
Roberts found that Hoghard’s planned testimony would not undermine the viability of such a fact and reaffirmed her initial decision to hold a joint trial, with the same statement of facts to be heard later.
Similarities between the stories of the two applicants
The Crown had to file an application before it could urge the jury to consider the similarities between the two applicants’ stories as a model of behavior.
In a statement made after prosecutors presented their evidence, but before the defense began to do so, Royal Attorney Jill Whitkin noted that both stories included sexual acts that were far from common, as well as several contextual similarities in the way in which Hogard communicated with the applicants before and after the meetings.
On the left, Jacob Hogard, Royal Attorney Jill Whitkin, Judge Gillian Roberts and members of the jury are shown during Whitkin’s closing remarks in the May 27 trial against Hoghard for sexual assault in Toronto. (Alexandra Newbold / The Canadian Press)
Whitkin argues that jurors should be allowed to consider how incredible it is for two women who have never spoken to come up with such accusations.
Savard argues that there is a reasonable, innocent explanation for the similarities, namely that many of these actions – such as spitting, slapping, naming and urinating – are part of Hogard’s sexual repertoire. As a result, she said, the similarities are no longer significant and should not be weighted.
The judge ruled that jurors should be allowed to consider the similarities and differences between charges, and they should decide whether to show “such a distinctive pattern of behavior” that it “contradicts the coincidence.”
Texts and a call between Hogard and the applicants
The admissibility of certain text messages between Hogard and the applicants was ruled before the trial, but the issue unexpectedly resurfaced as the defense questioned the second applicant.
The Crown was granted permission before the trial to present some evidence relating to text messages between Hogard and the two applicants. The crown said the defense would be allowed to question the applicants on any evidence presented by prosecutors in connection with the communications, without submitting a separate application, which would otherwise be required by law, and the judge agreed.
Some of the communications Hogard exchanged with the younger applicant were shown to the court, but the Crown did not show any of the communications he exchanged with the second applicant. However, the second applicant testified that some of the reports were of a sexual nature.
In the middle of the second applicant’s cross-examination, the defense tried to present a recording of a telephone conversation she had with Hogard shortly after their meeting and to question her about the content of specific sexual texts.
According to the law, evidence of the applicant’s past sexual history, …
Add Comment