Nearly a month after the start of the trial into the killing of an Ontario Provincial Police constable, the Crown began its closing arguments, arguing Tuesday that Randall McKenzie shot and killed Greg Pierzchala and Brandi Stewart-Sperry helped him do it.
McKenzie and Stewart-Sperry have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the December 2022 shooting death of Pierzchala, 28. Their Superior Court trial in Cayuga began in late March and heard from witnesses including experts in forensics, people on the scene before and during the alleged crime, and those who saw the co-accused after the shooting.
“They supported each other” during the alleged crime, Crown lawyer Fraser McCracken said, calling it a “joint effort.”
McCracken presented a narrative in which, after a string of thefts, including of a Nissan Armada in Hamilton, the co-accused found themselves stuck in a ditch in a stolen SUV near Hagersville. When a young police officer arrived on the scene, they could either surrender or “eliminate the threat,” he said.
Stewart-Sperry has admitted to being at the scene of the shooting and being the woman shown in video captured by Pierzchala’s bodycam. McKenzie has not admitted to being the shooter who was seen in the video firing six shots at Pierzchala. The officer is also heard screaming in the footage.
McCracken spent a significant portion of his 90-minute closing argument making the case McKenzie is that shooter. He referred to image analysis comparing their faces, similarities between clothing worn by the shooter and McKenzie when he was arrested hours later, witness testimony and DNA evidence linking McKenzie to the stolen vehicle and handgun he said the shooter used.
McKenzie’s lawyer, Douglas Holt, used his closing argument to poke holes in that narrative and argue the jury should have reasonable doubt that McKenzie shot Pierzchala.
He pointed to several parts of the Crown’s case and argued they weren’t as solid as presented. For instance, he said, the shooter left a pair of pants with McKenzie’s DNA on them in the stolen car.
“If Randall McKenzie was the shooter, why wouldn’t he take his pants with him?” Holt asked the jury.
He also argued witnesses said the shooter wore a black jacket, but not a black jacket with a red lining like McKenzie had on when he was arrested. He said they incorrectly described his client’s face tattoos — markings he said are not visible in the bodycam footage.
Meanwhile, McCracken said, the bodycam video was compressed and some fine details were likely lost. He also said the shooter’s hood and hat could have obscured the tattoos.
As for the evidence that McKenzie’s DNA was on the gun that shot Pierzchala, Holt argued there is “no evidence he was in exclusive access and control of that firearm” and someone else could have used it.
“There’s an inference — a reasonable inference — that Randall and the shooter are not one and the same,” he said.
The jury has heard McKenzie texted people about “shooting out with the cops,” but Holt said it’s hard to understand the intent of those statements, since tone doesn’t translate over text.
On Wednesday, Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer, Scott Reid, is expected to present closing arguments.
McCracken argued she was a willing participant in the shooting, she helped McKenzie in the act by making it hard for Pierzchala to see him and she tried to cover up the crime, including by attempting to hide the getaway vehicle.
“Their shared plan, the teamwork, and now, the accountability,” McCracken said.
Early in the trial, Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer asked witnesses whether she seemed intoxicated prior to the shooting. Many agreed she did.
McCracken said her actions after the shooting show she knew what she was doing.
“It’s logical, goal-oriented behaviour,” he said.
