Lawyers argue whether court should admit findings from Mr. Big sting in David Caissie murder trial
Dan Zakreski | CBC News | Posted: October 4, 2018 8:59 PM | Last Updated: October 4, 2018
Onus on prosecution to show undercover cops worked within rules set by Supreme Court
A Saskatoon judge will rule in two weeks whether undercover police played by the rules set by the Supreme Court when they ran a sophisticated "Mr. Big sting" on accused killer David Caissie.
Caissie is on trial at Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatoon, charged with first-degree murder in the August 2011 death of Carol King near Rosetown, about 110 kilometres southwest of Saskatoon.
The charge followed an undercover operation where officers posed as criminals to gain Caissie's trust, in what's commonly called a "Mr. Big sting." It was during his interactions with officers that Caissie apparently confessed to killing her and disposing of her body.
On Thursday, Crown and defence lawyers argued over the question of whether the evidence gathered during that sting is admissible in Caissie's trial.
Since 2014, the onus has fallen on prosecutors to convince judges to allow material from Mr. Big stings to be admitted. The Supreme Court made the change because of concerns that vulnerable suspects were being preyed upon by police.
- Man charged in death of Carol King will plead not guilty: lawyer
- Ex-boyfriend charged with 1st-degree murder of Carol King
Prosecutor Matthew Miazga argued there was nothing in the evidence suggesting police violence or coercion of Caissie during the 49 scenarios they set up over a five-month span.
Miazga also said there was nothing that came out of the hours of police audio recordings that indicated he had been taken advantage of.
Further, he said that Caissie revealed details to officers that explained what happened on Aug. 6, 2011, the day King is believed to have been killed.
Defence lawyer Kevin Hill said the main problem with the findings in the sting is their reliability.
"There are just too many things Caissie doesn't know that he should, and things that he says he knows that don't check out," he said.
"These are details that should be seared into his memory."
Justice Richard Danyliuk will give his ruling Oct. 17.