Lawyer in terror trial argues RCMP interview violated his client's rights

The lawyer of a Windsor, Ont., man accused of terrorism is arguing that a video in which his client admits to trying to join a terror group should be thrown out because his rights were violated.

Seth Bertand's trial resumed this week at the Superior Court of Justice in downtown Windsor. The 21-year-old was charged by the RCMP for alleged links to a known terrorist organization, Atomwaffen Division. 

Bertrand was arrested and charged with the offence in May 2022. He has pleaded not guilty and is being tried by judge alone.

According to the RCMP, Bertrand filed an application to join the Atomwaffen Division (AWD), also known as the National Socialist Order, and said he'd do things for the group. 

AWD was first named by the federal government as a terrorist listed entity in 2021. According to the RCMP, Bertrand had applied to the group just a few weeks after it became listed as a terror group. 

Bertrand was charged with terrorism following various hate-motivated offences that took place in the Windsor area between Feb. 12 and May 20, 2021. He was separately charged for these hate-motivated acts and pleaded guilty to them in 2022. 

The current case is a blended voir dire and trial, meaning that the court is hearing evidence and determining whether it is admissible while the trial is ongoing. 

RCMP officer gives testimony

On Tuesday, RCMP Sgt. Shelly Schedewitz took the witness box.

Schedewitz was the officer who interviewed Bertrand shortly after he was arrested and brought to Windsor Police Service headquarters in May 2022. 

In the audio and video recordings from their conversations, Schedewitz tells Bertrand that she's not part of the investigation, but is there to help him understand his charge. 

Throughout the conversation, Bertrand reveals various details about himself, like that he works at a steel shop in Windsor and is trying to get his life together. He admits to submitting an email to AWD, but goes on to eventually say that he lost contact and never heard from them, so he didn't actually get involved. 

The cross-examination of Schedewitz by Bertrand's lawyer, Bobby Russon, became tense at times. 

Russon argued that officers, including Schedewitz, didn't properly explain to Bertrand the jeopardy he faced, nor did they give him the chance to speak with the lawyer he requested or make sufficient efforts to contact that lawyer or inform him he had the right to wait a reasonable amount of time to speak with the lawyer he wanted. 

But Schedewitz adamantly testified that she believed Bertrand understood his charges. She also says she wanted him to speak to any sort of legal support. She is heard in an audio recording convincing him to speak with legal aid, even though it wasn't his preferred lawyer.

Russon suggests that Schedewitz was "flippant" in the way she approached her interview with Bertrand that day. 

He says he doesn't believe that the comments Bertrand made in the video were done voluntarily and points to his rights being violated as the reason why the video shouldn't be allowed as evidence. 

Judge to decide whether video approved as evidence

The presiding judge, Justice Maria Carroccia, now has to decide whether the interview that Bertrand did with Schedewitz can be entered into the trial as evidence. 

The judge is also currently trying to determine whether Bertrand's interactions with undercover officers — which were discussed during previous days of the trial — can be admitted as evidence. The identities of the officers are under a publication ban. 

Decisions around admitting these as evidence likely won't be made until the end of this year or early next, Carroccia said during court Tuesday. 

Bertrand's trial began on Oct. 1, and it's expected to continue for the rest of this week. On Wednesday, the court is supposed to hear from an expert witness.