Coutts Four trial deliberates verdict after receiving instructions from judge

Jurors began their deliberations in the trial of Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick in Lethbridge, AB, after Wednesday's proceedings concluded.

Justice David Labrenz, the judge presiding over the trial, issued his charge -– legal instructions for jurors pertaining to deliberations and the specific charges against the defendants -– to the jury across the day's proceedings.

Carbert and Olienick are both charged with conspiracy to murder, with the Crown accusing the two men of conspiring to murder police officers at a protest parallel to the 2022 Coutts blockade along the border.

Both defendants are also accused of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000. Olienick is additionally charged with unlawful possession of an explosive device.

They pled not guilty to all charges against them, with the exception of the mischief over $5,000 charge against Carbert.

Yesterday, Justice David Labrenz directed jurors to render a guilty verdict for the charge of mischief of $5,000 against Chris Carbert. following closing remarks previously made by Carbert's lawyer, Katherin Beyak, inviting jurors to issue such a verdict. https://t.co/H2kqcMrDCY

— Robert Kraychik (@rkraychik) August 1, 2024

Katherin Beyak, Carbert's counsel, invited jurors to find him guilty of the charge during her closing arguments, given statements her client made during his testimony admitting to the crime.

Labrenz emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence, describing it as the primary principle of the justice system. The burden of proof, he added, lays entirely with the prosecution. In order to render a verdict of guilty on any charge for either defendant, the judge explained, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the particular accused.

Labrenz told jurors he is there "to help you make a decision, not to tell you what decision to make."

Publication ban lifted in the trial of Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick given that the jury has now retired to deliberate its verdicts. Many interesting things with broad/national implications took place during these proceedings which I'll report on in the very near future. pic.twitter.com/5mPsHU78M9

— Robert Kraychik (@rkraychik) August 1, 2024

The judge explained that an appeal process exists to potentially remedy any errors he might make in his capacity as a judge, given that his decisions and statements are captured as part pf the court proceedings’ record. Jurors' deliberations, however, are not recorded and not subject to review.

Jurors must not make determinations of guilt on the basis of their assessments of the character of a defendant, Labrenz added. He further instructed them not to use propensity reasoning in their deliberations, which he defined as analysis of an accused’s likelihood to commit particular crimes based on assessments of their character.

Labrenz directed jurors to "listen attentively to other jurors," evaluate evidence "rationally," and to conduct themselves in a "calm" and "reasonable."

The judge added that jurors must not make negative inferences about Olienick's guilt based on his decision not to testify in his own trial. He also said Carbert's testimony should not be evaluated any differently than any other witness. Carbert's decision to testify, he continued, does not afford an inference of lack of guilt.