Prosecution, defence yet to agree on glove evidence
Crown questions receipts submitted by officer’s defence in fatal arrest case
Prosecutors in Const. Daniel Montsion’s manslaughter and assault trial appeared to question defence evidence related to the Oakley gloves the officer wore during the fatal arrest of Abdirahman Abdi on July 24, 2016.
Prosecutor Philip Perlmutter told Ontario Court Justice Robert Kelly on Tuesday the Crown has several concerns with receipts tendered by Montsion’s defence showing the reinforced knuckle-plated gloves were purchased by Ottawa police and issued to Montsion’s DART (direct action response team) unit.
Procurement orders, receipts and expense sheets were entered by the defence last week, bearing the signatures of Montsion’s supervising officer Staff Sgt. Sandra Sparling of the DART unit and since-retired Supt. Don Sweet.
That evidence, according to the defence team of Michael Edelson and Solomon Friedman, should “put to rest” the Crown’s suggestion the gloves were neither issued nor sanctioned by Ottawa police.
“He was wearing the equipment purchased for him by his supervisor,” Friedman told the judge last week after the Crown closed its case, and the defence completed its evidence in a single day.
But on Tuesday morning Perlmutter suggested the Crown would pursue an application to call further evidence and cross-examine other witnesses to answer several questions about the Oakley receipts.
Perlmutter took issue with one handwritten inscription that appeared on an invoice for 11 pairs of special-issue gloves ordered directly from Oakley, and signed by Sweet.
A handwritten notation next to the amount names Montsion’s “DART” unit and appears to indicate the purchase was for “Protective Eyeware (sic).”
When Montsion’s defence referenced the document last week, the same notation was translated and put on the court record as “Protective Expense.”
Perlmutter complained to the judge on Tuesday that there was nothing on the document that referenced gloves, said there were discrepancies between the dollar amounts, and noted the reference number contained in the document corresponded to sunglasses when searching the Oakley website.
Perlmutter at one point suggested issuing a subpoena to the officer who made the “indecipherable” notation “to give evidence on what it says.”
Friedman countered by saying that while the documentary evidence has been in the Crown’s possession for “years,” there was no mention of any issue concerning “eyewear” prior to Tuesday’s session.
“This is the first time we’re hearing it,” Friedman said.
The judge granted time for both parties to hammer out an agreed statement of facts concerning the purchase of the gloves, which Crown and defence both said would eliminate the need for a separate hearing.
No agreement was reached, however, as the lawyers spent nearly five hours negotiating the exact wording to be contained in the agreed statement of facts.
The judge returned and was told the language in dispute was “down to one line.”
Kelly was left optimistic an agreement could be reached in time for Wednesday’s session, which is scheduled to hear arguments from the Crown in favour of taking the judge on a court-supervised visit to the Hilda Street scene.
“You have spent all day on the documents issue,” Kelly said before adjourning for the day. “Finish that before moving on to (the scene visit) issue.”