Jurors have begun deliberations on the sexual assault trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard, lead singer of the band Hedley. This is part of the information that forbade them to hear during the trial to protect their impartiality.
–
Hoggard faces a new charge
Hoggard was charged in March with sexual assault that caused bodily harm to another whistleblower in an incident that allegedly took place in Kirkland Lake, Ontario, on July 25, 2016.
The case was briefly before a court in nearby Haileybury, Ontario, last Thursday and will return on August 4.
Hoggard’s attorney, Megan Savard, said Tuesday that her client is innocent and denies the new charge and will plead not guilty. She declined to comment further as the case is before the courts.
The identity of the complainant in this case is also protected by a publication ban.
Hedley played at the Kirkland Lake Homecoming Festival on June 24, 2016.
–
Online complaints about Hoggard
Neither lawyers nor trial witnesses were able to allude to the jury several anonymous allegations about Hoggard that arose online before his arrest in 2018.
In the second week of the trial, defense attorneys asked the court to declare the trial set aside after the second complainant briefly referred to other allegations.
The complainant stated that she decided to report her meeting with Hoggard to the police after seeing an online article about an investigation into allegations of sexual assault against the singer. Prosecutors cut her off immediately before she could dig deeper.
In the absence of the jury, defense attorney Savard argued that the complainant’s words had caused irreparable harm.
Ontario Superior Court Judge Gillian Roberts found that the second complainant’s brief response would not “fatally hurt” the trial if the jurors received proper corrective instruction.
He then told jurors that there was no evidence of allegations other than those of the two complainants, adding that “they should not speculate” on the matter.
The allegations that circulated online in 2018 have not been verified by The Canadian Press, nor have they been proven in court.
–
Hedley’s former drummer gave a police masturbation video
Prosecutors tried to call Hedley’s former drummer Chris Crippin to testify that Hoggard at one point sent him a video of him masturbating in the bathroom of an airplane.
In the pre-trial motions heard last year, Crippin, who was fired from the band in 2016, said he did not consent to receive the video, but that he kept it and eventually handed it over to police.
Crippin also said Hoggard, with whom he was on bad terms, had shared details of his sexual encounters with women. The drummer alleged that at one point, he suggested that Hoggard was degrading, and the singer agreed. However, he said there was no indication that any of the acts described by Hoggard were not consensual.
Roberts declared his evidence inadmissible. The judge said that if the jurors concluded that Hoggard sent the video knowing that Crippin did not want to receive it, there was a risk that the musician was “the kind of person ready to inflict his sexuality on others, regardless of your wishes “. would have a “significant” detrimental effect.
Roberts also found that the degradation comment posed a “real risk” that jurors would infer that Hoggard is more likely to commit sexual assault because he likes to degrade women.
A description of the masturbation video was included in a consensual statement of facts that was presented during the trial, but no mention was made of how the police obtained it.
The two plaintiffs testified during the trial that Hoggard sent them a video masturbating.
Crippin’s account has not been tested in court.
–
Evidence of preparation
Prosecutors were barred from using what the judge considered “very harmful etiquette,” such as preparing for, attracting, and possessing child pornography before a jury while discussing Hoggard’s interactions with the plaintiff. .
Prior to the trial, the defense tried to exclude some aspects of the plaintiff teenager’s expected evidence from the trial, including that she exchanged messages with Hoggard in which she “cultivated a romantic relationship of trust” and that they exchanged sexual messages. and nude photos.
Defense attorneys argued that jurors could misuse the evidence to infer that Hoggard was more likely to have been sexually assaulted.
The Crown said Hoggard’s interactions with the two whistleblowers that led to the alleged sexual assaults were “essential to the narrative” of how they came to be in his hotel room.
The judge ruled that the evidence was admissible, but said the jurors could not be told that the young age of the teenage complainant made her allegations more serious or that some of these alleged interactions, if any. true, they would also be crimes.
The defense also received permission to interrogate the complainants on any evidence related to the texts raised by the Crown without submitting a separate application, part of the sentence that was examined when the defense attempted to cross-examine the second complainant. on the content of some of these half-hearted texts.
–
The defense tried to have the cases tried separately
Hoggard’s attorneys tried to split the case into separate trials, arguing that the teen complainant’s expected evidence could affect the jury’s assessment of the evidence in relation to the second complainant.
In an initial application in 2020, the defense argued that the “evidence of bad character” related to the allegations involving the teenage whistleblower could make jurors more inclined to punish the singer because he appears to be a “bad person.” .
Roberts found that while jurors might “think very badly” of Hoggard if they thought he palpated the teen and sent him explicit texts, they wouldn’t assume he’s a rapist based on that evidence.
“I am pleased that the jury understands that what happened in each hotel room is the focus of the trial,” the judge wrote in her sentence.
He also found that the existence of a viable application of similar facts, a process by which the Crown argues that jurors should be able to consider similarities in the accounts of the two complainants, supported a joint trial.
The defense again tried to separate the two cases in February, arguing that the application of similar facts was no longer viable, as Hoggard had planned to testify and “recognize that the particular acts described by the two complainants were part of his sexual repertoire in the timing of the complaints “.
Roberts found that Hoggard’s expected testimony did not undermine the feasibility of applying similar facts and confirmed his initial decision to hold a joint trial, with the request for similar facts to be heard later.
–
Similarities between the stories of the two complainants
The Crown had to submit a request before it could urge the jury to consider the similarities between the accounts of the two complainants as a pattern of behavior.
In the request, which took place after prosecutors presented their evidence, but before the defense began to do so, Crown’s attorney, Jill Witkin, noted that both stories include sexual acts that do not they are generic, as well as various contextual similarities in how Hoggard communicated with the complainants. before and after the meetings.
Witkin argued that jurors should be allowed to consider how unlikely it is that two women who have never spoken have made similar accusations.
Savard argued that there was a reasonable and innocent explanation for the similarities, namely that many of these acts, such as spitting, slapping, naming and urinating, were part of Hoggard’s sexual repertoire. As a result, he said, the similarities are no longer significant and should not be given weight.
The judge ruled that jurors should be allowed to consider the similarities and differences between complaints, and it should be up to them to decide whether to show “such a distinctive pattern of conduct” that it would “challenge coincidence.”
–
Texts and calls between Hoggard and whistleblowers
The admissibility of certain text messages between Hoggard and the complainants was decided before the trial, but the issue came back unexpectedly when the defense questioned the second complainant.
The Crown received permission before the trial to introduce some text-related evidence between Hoggard and the two complainants. The Crown said the defense could question the complainants about any evidence the prosecutors provided related to the messages without making a separate request that would otherwise be required by law, and the judge agreed.
Some of the messages Hoggard exchanged with the younger whistleblower were shown in court, but the Crown did not show any of the messages it exchanged with the second whistleblower. The second complainant stated, however, that some of the messages were sexual in nature.
In the middle of the second whistleblower’s interrogation, the defense tried to introduce a recording of a phone call she had with Hoggard shortly after their meeting and question her about the content of specific sexual texts.
By law, evidence of a whistleblower’s previous sexual history, which may include sexual texts, is inadmissible unless there is a request to show that it will only be used for limited and specific purposes. This evidence cannot be used to suggest that a whistleblower was more likely to consent or not be believed, commonly known as “twin myths.”
In addition, in 2018, the federal government changed the rules on the use of private records related to a whistleblower but held by the defendant – including texts, letters or photos – in sexual assault trials. The new rules require that the defense be applied in advance to introduce these materials and grant the complainants the right to participate in this …