@@professorsankoff7683 I'm curious to know what you think of the upcoming SCC appeal R v Randy Riley. A Crown witness was a co-accused who had placed the blame solely on Riley's shoulders during his own trial in which he was convicted on 1st degree. During Riley's trial he turned against the Crown and took full blame for the crime. It was at this point that the judge gave a mid-trial Vetrovec warning. Given that the Crown witness proved adverse to the Crown, would this Vetrovec warning go against the principle that only Crown witnesses should be given the warning?
@@kitnkabootles It's a really interesting case that I just had a look at. For sure, it could alter the law in this area, depending on what the SCC does. It would not totally undermine the principle you cite either way, as it was still a Crown witness, but it will likely develop the law on "mixed witnesses", which remains murky.
This helped me so much ty!
You are super welcome!!
@@professorsankoff7683 I'm curious to know what you think of the upcoming SCC appeal R v Randy Riley.
A Crown witness was a co-accused who had placed the blame solely on Riley's shoulders during his own trial in which he was convicted on 1st degree. During Riley's trial he turned against the Crown and took full blame for the crime. It was at this point that the judge gave a mid-trial Vetrovec warning.
Given that the Crown witness proved adverse to the Crown, would this Vetrovec warning go against the principle that only Crown witnesses should be given the warning?
@@kitnkabootles It's a really interesting case that I just had a look at. For sure, it could alter the law in this area, depending on what the SCC does. It would not totally undermine the principle you cite either way, as it was still a Crown witness, but it will likely develop the law on "mixed witnesses", which remains murky.