WARNING: This story contains coarse language.
Of everything the jury doesn’t know about in the case against Alain Bellefeuille as they begin deliberations — and, as with all jury trials, that’s more than the general public might think — perhaps the most significant is a violent note found in Bellefeuille’s van.
The undated and unsigned note, attributed to the man accused of murdering a police officer and attempting to murder two others during a wellness check east of Ottawa in 2023, is directed at the “Majestry” (think: royalty or monarchy, according to the judge) and everyone who pledges allegiance to it. Those who “came with their boats,” “stepped foot on This Place of piece [peace],” and “destroyed Earth.”
The note curses them. It says they “Will all burn alive” and “ALL DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH!”
Weeks into the trial, the Crown sought to introduce the note as evidence. A photo of it had been provided to defence counsel as part of the disclosure process many months earlier, but it was not discussed during pre-trial motions — when lawyers on both sides argue before a judge about what should be admissible or not during the trial, among other issues.
On April 25, after the jury had been dismissed for the day, assistant Crown attorney Louise Tansey argued the note is evidence of motive and animus — that Bellefeuille’s shooting of three Ontario Provincial Police officers was essentially a manifestation of the violence called for in the note against the “majestry.”
“It’s not lost on anyone through these proceedings that the OPP uniform in fact has a crown on it. That’s something that’s been shown repeatedly throughout this [trial]; it’s on the OPP vehicles; it’s on the crests worn by Sgt. Mueller and Const. Lauzon and all of the officers attending,” Tansey told Superior Court Justice Robert Pelletier.
“There is a real connection there, and there are some expressions of both animus towards that group of people, and also, I say, motive, as far as the deserving to die, burning alive, and most specifically, dying a horrible death. There can be no doubt that is the death that Sgt. Mueller died — a horrible one.”
Defence lawyer Leo Russomanno argued that the “monumentally weak” link between the people described in the note and police acting as agents of the Crown isn’t clear or direct enough, calling it “dangerously prejudicial evidence.”
“I say that it is particularly prejudicial because it is an Indigenous man on trial for murder, because it does give rise to stereotypes of an Indigenous people who are anti-establishment, who seek to perpetrate violence against the state because they don’t recognize the authority of the state,” Russomanno said.
Pelletier sided with the defence and ruled the note inadmissible, writing that if it “has any bearing whatsoever on Mr. Bellefeuille’s state of mind at the time of the shooting, the connection is speculative, and the value of the evidence is very limited.”
In his endorsement, the judge wrote that the note is “clearly a lament of the effects of colonization,” and that the author’s biggest gripe “is against those responsible for the appropriation of land.
“There is no aggression expressed towards the police,” Pelletier ruled.
In trials with juries, a lot happens that jurors don’t know about — everything from routine case management and scheduling issues to disagreements on law between lawyers and more.
Sometimes problems arise concerning juries themselves, as in the ongoing trial of five hockey players accused of sexual assault in London, Ont.
During Bellefeuille’s trial two jurors were dismissed on separate occasions, and CBC can now report what led to the dismissal of the first juror on April 30.
On April 29, the foreperson of the jury wrote a note to the judge addressing a matter so sensitive that members of the public, including the media, were asked to clear the room so the judge and lawyers could discuss it among themselves.
When open court resumed it was learned that the foreperson had brought up bullying behaviour by another juror that made some members of the panel feel like they couldn’t freely express their opinions — and startlingly, that the behaviour had been going on since Day 1 of the trial a month earlier.
The foreperson was asked to identify the juror involved, and did so by passing another note to the judge. The following day, the lawyers and judge agreed to dismiss the juror involved, but the defence wanted every remaining juror to be questioned one at a time about whether they were able to follow and focus on the evidence day after day.
The Crown objected, saying that the juror’s dismissal would handle the issue, and that the jury could be instructed to raise any issues with the court individually.
The judge sided with the Crown, and the juror was brought back into the courtroom.
“Certain jurors have felt that their views could not be expressed freely and openly without the fear of reprisals and comments from you which have been described to me as intimidating at times,” Pelletier told her.
“I do not want to give you the impression that your efforts and your dedication to your task as a juror has not been appreciated. It is however felt, and I have decided, that it is necessary to discharge you as a juror at this time.”
The judge reminded the woman of her obligation not to talk about discussions with the jury with anyone, and dismissed her with thanks.
A week later another juror was dismissed, this time after an OPP officer gave him a ride when he failed to arrive at the courthouse on time on May 9. The decision to give the ride was made jointly by courthouse staff and OPP, but the judge never ordered it.
“This causes me some disquiet. Not on the issue of whether there has been any interference, but on the issue of whether it could be reasonably perceived that that risk exists. As we know, justice needs to be done and needs to be seen to be done,” Pelletier told the lawyers in the absence of the jury.
The officer’s body-worn camera footage was reviewed, and the Crown and defence spoke to him in private in the small barrister’s lounge not far down the hallway from the courtroom.
Back in court, the Crown argued not to dismiss the juror, saying there was no evidence that anything untoward had happened. The judge decided that the optics were bad regardless, and the juror was dismissed.
Pelletier didn’t blame the officer, court staff or the juror, and said everyone was simply trying to get proceedings underway as soon as possible.
