The trial of an attack on an RCMP officer in Kelowna resumed on Friday after it began last month.
Const. Sigi Pitraz is facing an accusation of an attack in connection with an arrest in May 2020 in the center of Kelowna, recorded on video. The video shows Const. David Carter et al. Regan Donahue struggles to arrest Tyler Russell before const. Pietrzak arrived on the scene and punched Russell in the face several times.
After the video appeared, Pietrzak was placed on administrative duty and then fired. The charge of assault was filed about a year later.
Last month, several detainees testified at the trial against Pitraz, in addition to Russell. On Friday, Crown Attorney David Haney worked to persuade Judge Marian Armstrong to allow “expert testimony” from Staff Sergeant. Leonard McCoshen, but defender David Butcher opposed the admission of McCoshen’s testimony.
McCoshen, an Alberta homicide investigator, has more than 30 years of experience with the RCMP, including seven years of joint work early in his career. He is now on the RCMP’s National Committee on the Use of Force and has qualified as a “use of force” expert in previous trials involving police officers.
He has also taught a number of RCMP courses since 2004 and has estimated that he has trained nearly 1,000 officers.
During Friday’s voir dire, where statements were made to determine the admissibility of McCoshen’s “expert” evidence, Haney argued that most, if not all, cases of “use of force” such as the Pietrzak issue involve an expert opinion from some kind of expert.
“It will be difficult to find a case of the use of force under Section 25 that does not include the exact type of expert evidence the Crown wants to offer,” Haney told Judge Armstrong. Section 25 of the Penal Code regulates the permissible use of force by employees in the performance of their duties.
Butcher spent most of Friday day cross-examining a sergeant. McCoshen. Ultimately, Butcher argued that the veteran’s experience as a street officer was “too old” and that McCoshen’s testimony about his origins was “either exaggerated and exaggerated or irrelevant.”
“This man is not qualified and he does not need to testify,” Butcher said. “His evidence is quite historical and has much less content than a 40-page autobiography might suggest.”
He suggested that the officers who had testified earlier in the trial – Pietrzak’s colleagues – were just as qualified to talk about the appropriate use of force needed during the arrest.
Haney noted that initially Pitzarak’s defense did not oppose the admissibility of expert evidence on the use of force, but that has now changed. In her closing remarks on the issue, Haney cited a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court.
“This is the Supreme Court of Canada, which says that it is true, you have the right to hear expert evidence of the use of force by the police on the implementation of training and policy with a set of facts. That’s crucial to this issue, “Haney said.
Judge Armstrong kept his decision on whether to leave McCoshen’s testimony for a later date. McCoshen has already written a “report on the use of force” in the Pitrazak case, but it is unclear what McCoshen’s opinion will be about Pitrazak’s arrest if he is allowed to testify.
The case is scheduled to resume on June 23 and 24. Towards the end of the day on Friday, Butcher and Haney said it was unclear whether they would be completed within the last two days of the scheduled trial, and Judge Armstrong asked them to investigate finding an additional two days of trial if necessary.
Add Comment