Oh.
My.
goD.
Will this ever end???!?!?!??!
I can not believe I have to report this (I will have to post links to articles next week as we are going out of town for the weekend as of tonight).
If you're not already sitting, do it now.
WARNING: Descriptive text below may be too graphic for some readers. Please use caution.
Daniel Haskett filed an application to Vacate his Guilty Plea. As in he asked the court to pretend like he'd never plead guilty in the first place - remember way back when that he originally pled not guilty?
That is how the day started.... 2 hours later, the judge broke for lunch & to try to consider the evidence and make his decision. Brief synopsis of those 2 hours:
Daniel was called to testify, and first his lawyer questioned him then he was questioned by the Crown prosecutor.
First his lawyer basically suggested that there were problems with his original lawyer's consultation of Daniel, that Daniel didn't fully understand that signing the agreed statement of facts meant he was saying that he had done everything that was written there. They claim that Daniel changed his plea to guilty on the original date for his trial because he had been harassed repeatedly, had death threats against him and even been shot at - his logic was that he thought if he plead guilty people would see he was trying to "take responsibility for his actions and accept his punishiment" and would stop harassing him. He said that he thought it would make everything go away faster. He said he knows it's illegal to hurt an animal but that was not his intent.
The Crown prosecutor got up and asked him a lot of questions about when he decided to plead guilty - obviously the agreed statement of facts would take some time to draw up and though it was signed the day of the trial, it wouldn't have been written that morning. Daniel didn't really answer.
Then he asked if Daniel could tell him which parts of the statement of facts he disagreed with - which parts were untrue - and Daniel pointed out only 3 areas: A paragraph that talked about putting Daisy's head in a garbage bag and tying it with a rope to try to suffocate her. He said "rope was not used" when the bag was put over her head.
He claims that he wasn't present when T. (the young offender) hit Daisy over the head with a shovel, though it implied in the facts that he was. (He also said that the order of the events is not correct and that they had discussed where to dispose of her body before she was dragged into the garage, not while they were waiting for her to suffocate in the bag as the facts say.)
The facts also say that T. reported that Daniel had told him and encouraged him to drag the dog behind his car. Daniel said he would never encourage anyone to drag a dog because "it's grotesque" (his words!).
The Crown asked him to read the lines above his signature - the gist of which is that "all of which is admitted", and asked him to verify that it was indeed his signature there. Did Daniel understand this? Yes.
More questions:
Daniel somehow seemed to think that pleading guilty would take less time that a trial. He thought that if he pointed out the areas in the facts that were incorrect, he would have to PROVE that he was innocent in those areas and didn't know how to do that. But he never asked his lawyer, even though his lawyer went through this document with him in detail.
He said that what he understood from his lawyer was that he either had to accept ALL of the statement of facts or deny ALL of it - that there was no "negotiating" on what parts of it he pled guilty to.
The Crown then brought out the pre-sentence report issued by his Parole Officer. Daniel said he didn't remember this document and was unsure if he'd had this report discussed with him.
Crown attempted to refresh his memory of conversations with the PO that led to this report - and magically Daniel can remember conversations he had.
He agreed that he'd told the PO that the statement of facts was "a reasonable description of what had happened", but he says that "reasonable" doesn't mean "100% accurate" (he didn't mention this to the PO). Further, when the PO asked him why he'd changed his plea, Daniel had told him that he'd "lied lied and lied some more" and that he was done lying and wanted to come clean on what had really happened. But even at this point in time, according to the PO's interview with him, he was still in agreement with the statement of facts.
So, onto the psychiatric assessment, where the "truth" originally came out - if you remember it was the difference in the report that Daniel told the doctor and what the statement of facts said that was why his original lawyer stepped off the case.
Daniel (in his infinite wisdom) says that he told the doctor the truth because he didn't want the doctor to think he was a "lunatic" who could do the things the statement of facts said he did. He claims that he believed the doctor (who was ordered by the Crown as part of his pre-sentencing assesment) would not TELL the details of their conversation to the court. He thought it was for his mental health. (The Crown got really excited at this - it was actually hard not to laugh at Daniel's stupidity - especially when the Crown was asking things like "did you think you were ordered to visit this doctor out of concern for your mental status?")
Daniel further admitted he only saw his lawyer at the courthouse, so the reason he didn't ask many questions (like how long with a trial take?) was because he was distracted and had too many things on his mind. (At which point I was reminded of how few times Daniel actually showed up for court dates because of supposed job interviews.)
Daniel's lawyer got back up and presented some case references where a guilty plea had been reversed by the court - because of "some other motive or cause that led to the guilty plea" - his strongest case that of a police officer who pled guilty in an attempt to reconcile with his mother. When he later asked to vacate his plea, the court eventually let him.
He said that the courts have a duty for efficiency but also have a duty to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Efficiency???? This coming from a person who is representing a man who was previously fined by the court for failure to appear at 3 consecutive court dates? I actually had a full time job at the beginning of all this and *I* managed to get out there to all the dates!
Back to the Crown:
Crown argued that Daniel should not be believed when he said that he pled guilty because he thought it would get people to stop harassing him - because what he was "admitting" was worse than what people had originally thought he did, and no one could really think that he would believe agreeing to a worse crime would LESSEN the harassment.
He said regardless of the reason behind him pleading guilty, he is not saying that he had no fault in this crime. The charge was causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, and by his own admission today, he still accepts the portion of the facts that say he dragged the dog by a rope around her neck to the garage and attempted to suffocate her, and never called a vet or other person for help.
His examples of case references were very interesting. One of them said that "both the state and the accused BENEFIT from a guilty plea, as it usually results in much faster sentencing, no trials (which cost lots of money and time), and very rarely end in appeals".
He talked about how in most cases where a person applies to be vacated of a guilty plea, their original plea was entered without the guidance of counsel, even in the case of the police officer, and as such, it could be argued that they didn't really know what the consequences were - what it really MEANT to plead guilty. Daniel, however, pled guilty very late in the game - at the trial date - and under the guidance of competent counsel (they had previously spent about 10 minutes basically making the point that everyone agreed original lawyer had done nothing wrong).
He contined with another case that said when a guilty plea was entered when the accused believes it is "advantageous to do so" and for "reasons he or she deemed appropriate" should be viewed by the court as having a lot of weight - regardless of what the accused's perceived advantages were. He noted that if Daniel really didn't agree with the entire statement of facts, he had had ample opportunity to question the facts!! (He also noted at the beginning that he was only informed of the intent to apply to vacate the guilty plea Thursday morning this week)
They were both done at this point and the judge looked troubled. He said he wasn't sure he could reach a decision today, but he would like to break for a few minutes to see what kind of progress he could make. This was 12:15 (we started at 10), and he said he would return at 12:30.
At 1:00 the judge came back. He said that even if he could make a decision on the application to vacate today, and if he decided to deny it, another date would then need to be made for sentencing. He asked the lawyers if they would be agreeable to selecting another date at which he would present his decision, and if he denied the application then sentencing could happen right away. (Daniel's lawyer tried to move the case to Calgary at this point claiming that both the Crown and the judge were there more so it might be easier to find a date - the Crown vehemently opposed that based on community impact/involvement). They agreed to moving the application decision date and stepped out for a few minutes to find an agreeable date.
A few minutes later they returned and announced the date that was agreeable to both lawyers and the judge's schedule: October 21, 2008.
I kid you not. Daisy Duke was tortured and died on October 8, 2006 and assuming the application for vacating the plea is denied, Daniel will not be sentenced until October 21, 2008. If the application is approved, there will be at least one further date, for a trial (as his plea will be reverted back to not-guilty).
We left the court room and I seriously had to bend down with my face in my hands. I didn't know whether I was going to cry or puke. I simply cannot believe how long this is going on, or the fact that so many people are being forced to relive this over and over again with no closure for so much time.
Since Daisy Duke's death, I have gotten engaged, gotten married, suffered through my 92 year old grandmother's extremely painful and long illness and ultimately her death, and had to cope with the loss of my first childhood pet (Patchie was a 21 year old cat with multiple health problems. My parents made the difficult decision to have him euthanized). Before the next court date, my husband and I will be trying to conceive a baby - I could be pregnant by the time this goes back to court. And in this time, Daniel has been walking the streets, showing no remorse for the death of a young animal, having "job interviews", moving out of Didsbury (supposedly because he was too afraid to leave his house because of the threats and assaults he received), and the probation sentence on T. is at the point where he no longer has a curfew and can basically do whatever he wants again. Regardless of whether I believe that T. got the appropriate punishment (I don't), his time is nearly done - and Daniel hasn't even started his!
I am sick.
I don't know if it's because of the recent events in my family or just because going back there today brought all the horror of that day rushing back to me, but I just feel physically ill.
Thank you all for reading this. I will post links to the articles that come out over the weekend (there was quite a bit of media there again, thankfully) on Monday or Tuesday.
Thank you also for your continued support - whether that's in virtual hugs to me or in whatever way you are supporting things in real life. It is much appreciated.
I know that Daisy Duke has been resting peacefully, but I also know that these dates bring her pain back to her, and I can't stand for her to suffer anymore. I just want this to be over.
Thanks again, and don't worry, I will update again in October. *sigh*
Melissa