Over the last three seasons of Strictly Legal, I have been asked on a number of occasions why I did not deal with the legal issues faced by Conrad Black.  Certainly BNN and other media outlets devoted more than enough attention to his trial that occurred in Chicago.

As I explained to viewers on June 12, 2008 during a Strictly Legal program, I was waiting for the definitive guest prior to exploring this strange place.  Well, that guest came along in the person of Steve Skurka.  Steve is a Toronto lawyer/journalist.  He practices law with the firm of Skurka Spina Cugliari in Toronto and has been involved in a number of high profile criminal law cases, defending athletes, entertainers, lawyers, politicians and even a number of police officers.  What got my attention, though, for Strictly Legal was the fact that Steve Skurka headed off to Chicago and spent a number of months covering Conrad Black’s trial up close and personal.  Out of that experience has come a book entitled “Tilted:  The Trial of Conrad Black” (published by Dundurn Press).

Steve was my guest on June 12 and during the program we explored the curious title for his book.  Was the trial of Conrad Black tilted, and if so, how?

During the program and in more detail in his book, Steve traces the differences between the Canadian and the U.S. federal system for the prosecution of criminal offences.  The differences are dramatic and can be quite intimidating from an accused person’s perspective.  For example, prosecutors in the U.S. criminal justice system more often than not hold back the statements of witnesses, placing the defense lawyers at a distinct disadvantage.  In Canada, our system of justice encourages the Crown Attorneys (that’s what we call them in Canada – in the States they’re called District Attorneys or prosecutors) to provide all of the evidence that the Crown has to the defense counsel well in advance.  In this way, the defense lawyers are able to mount the best possible and fairest defense of an accused person.  There’s no such thing as “trial by ambush.”  There is no value in a conviction that is obtained because the defense lawyers were caught off guard by the late disclosure of evidence.  The Canadian criminal justice system, while not perfect, is a much fairer one from an accused person’s perspective.

Another significant difference between the Canadian criminal justice system and the American system is the use of juries.  In Canada, when a juror finishes a trial they are prohibited by law from discussing any of their work or deliberations of the jury.  This is not the case in the United States where jurors are free to express opinions to the media, publish books and sell interviews.  In seems bizarre indeed to Canadian lawyers that a juror can have a financial interest in the outcome of their work in the justice system.

Steve Skurka certainly saw the criminal justice system as stacked against Conrad Black.  He describes the plea bargaining and deal-making with witnesses for their evidence as a virtual “criminal justice flea market.”  For anyone who is interested in the inside scoop on the trial of Conrad Black, I recommend Mr. Skurka’s book “Tilted.”  We now know that Mr. Black’s appeals were rejected and, barring a pardon, he is apparently destined to spend the next few years in the U.S. prison system. Let’s hope that Mr. Black is able to spend his time fruitfully, perhaps generating more of the well-researched and beautifully-written books for which he is well-known.

Having read the book and discussed the matter with Steve Skurka, I am left wondering whether Mr. Black would have been convicted had he been tried in Canada. I think not.

Michael G. Cochrane, B.A., LL.B.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 9th, 2008 at 10:22 pm.
It is categorized under criminal law.
You can follow responses through the RSS 2.0 feed.