Jury deliberating in Gregson murder trial
Posted Mar 13, 2012 02:42:25 PM.
This article is more than 5 years old.
OTTAWA – The fate of ex-mountie Kevin Gregson is in the hands of the jury. They had begun deliberations but halted them to ask the justice if they could review testimony given by one of the paramedics who tried to save Const. Eric Czapnik.
The 12-member jury had to decide which portions of the testimony given by paramedic Craig MacInnes it would review. If they need to review the full transcripts it could take several hours. They have asked for a review of the moments from when MacInnes ran to Czapnik’s aid until he put Gregson into a police cruiser.
The defense and Crown prosecutors delivered their closing remarks Monday. In his closing statement, defense lawyer Craig Fleming told the jury their decision would be the single most important event of his client’s life.
The defense has not contested many of the facts presented in the trial, and Fleming said considering the events of Dec. 29, 2009, the jury should find Gregson guilty in the stabbing death of Const. Eric Czapnik—but not of first-degree murder.
Fleming said Gregson should be found guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter, because he never intended to kill Czapnik.
Fleming, who called his client thoughtless, selfish and egocentric, said Gregson stabbed Czapnik out of reflex, one that he said was ingrained in the ex-Mountie over years of training. He likened Gregson to a wrestler, who punches an opponent reflexively when thrown down.
He said Gregson did not think Czapnik would fight back.
Fleming added the jury should not judge Gregson for his personality, or whether they liked him, but whether or not they think he intended to kill Czapnik.
Fleming categorized Gregson as a man who had a love affair with knives and whose life was spiraling out of control when Czapnik was killed. He added Gregson was carrying two knives and a BB gun that day because it was out of habit. He said Gregson had spent so many years as a police officer that it came second nature to him to wear them when he ‘suited up’ that day.
Fleming maintained Gregson obsessively wished to shoot himself and did not believe drugs would do it, so he went looking for a gun. Gregson decided to get it from a police officer, and believed he could over power any other officer.
In his closing remarks, Crown prosecutor Brian Holowka refuted many of Gregson’s claims.
He methodically when through each claim, explaining why the jury should find Gregson guilty as charged.
He pointed out Gregson admitted that he went looking for a fight that day. Holowka explained Gregson’s state of mind, saying his world was collapsing around him and he only had $30 to his name.
The Crown argued Gregson wanted to bring embarrassment and disrepute to the RCMP with the heinous act and that he formulated a plan to steal a car and attract police attention. He said Gregson made a series of choices.
He said he chose to confront a police officer and to bring a knife and that he chose to use that knife, inevitably causing Czapnik’s death. He said Gregson knew his actions would lead to bloodshed.
Holowka also alleged Gregson did not wear the knife out of habit. He said he was taking care of his son that day, and there was no was he wore a razor sharp, six inch knife out of habit.
Holowka also disputed the claim that Gregson had stabbed Czapnik out of habit. He pointed out Czapnik never had the chance to push his panic button, nor did he have any defensive wounds on his hands.
He argued it was only logical to find Gregson guilty of first-degree murder.
Throughout closing arguments Gregson sat in the prisoner’s box quietly. He appeared disinterested and stared either straight ahead or down into his lap.
Justice Douglas Rutherford will finished charging the jury Tuesday morning.
brightcove.createExperiences();
Follow the trial in real time:
