If the Crown prosecutor uses hearsay testimony and out-of-court statements in the case against Mayor Larry O’Brien, he’s going to have to defend it each time it comes up during witness testimony, warned O’Brien’s lawyer yesterday.
Stating that he thought the Crown case consisted of “an unprecedented amount of hearsay,” defence attorney Michael Edelson said he was concerned that they need some kind of protocol to help dictate when the evidence would be admissible in court.
Edelson said he would be objecting to the admission of specific evidence.
Crown attorney Scott Hutchison would then have to outline the rules and the purpose for the admissibility of that evidence.
Justice J. Douglas Cunningham would then rule on whether or not this evidence is admissible or not.
Edelson was responding to Hutchison’s stated intention of using evidence consisting of conversations and email exchanges between some of the case’s principle characters, such as Terry Kilrea, who made the bribery allegation against O’Brien; Tim Tierney, Kilrea’s webmaster at the time; Ottawa-West Nepean MP John Baird; public strategy consultant Dimitri Pantazopoulos; and others.
Hutchison said he’d be happy to explain the purpose of the evidence as long as Edelson made his objection in a timely manner.
Edelson said there were some cases where the purpose of the evidence was “somewhat creative.” In particular, he pointed to the Crown’s seeking to introduce evidence intended to defeat a defence allegation that a witness has recently fabricated part of the story.
According to the indictment filed by the attorney general, Larry O’Brien has been charged with offering to help get Terry Kilrea appointed to the National Parole Board if Kilrea dropped out of the 2006 mayoral race.