After repeated requests to the trial judge to restrain Crown Counsel's aggressive and abusive cross-examination of an African-Canadian female complainant on a domestic violence trial in which Crown Counsel elected not to call the alleged victim as his witness to prove an alleged assault on her but to call the person she said assaulted her instead, I made the following off-the-cuff and passionate request to the trial judge:
"Your Honour, my friend's being very disrespectful to this witness, and I don't know if it's on account of her race, or what it is, but can you please caution him to (sic) finish her narrative ? He keeps interrupting, and bellowing like he's some big, bad-ass dog or something."
"Bellow"**: 1. roar like a bull; 2. utter loudly and angrily (Concise Oxford Dictionary)
If someone bellows, they shout angrily in a loud, deep voice.(Collins English Dictionary)
Immediate Apology on
Within less than a minute of those words being uttered a frank and fulsome apology
was communicated to Crown Counsel in order to preserve the integrity of the record
and proceedings. Crown Counsel rejected the apology and asked the trial judge for an
adjournment in order for him to bring a complaint before the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Trial Judge Denied
The trial judge denied the Crown's request. She stated:
THE COURT: I think that I would like for us to take a 15 minute break, and then for us to return and continue the trial.
MR. RINALDI: I can tell Your Honour I'm not in a position to do that. I - I - I - sic and to make some inquiries, and I've had enough of this. He called me names on the record and if...
MR. RINALDI: ...Your Honour wants to put up with that, that's your perogative. I'll come back to set a new date, but I intend on speaking to the Law Society about the comments that have been put on the record about me. They were completely slanderous and inappropriate.
Crown Counsel walked out on the trial judge.
Complaint to LSUC
by Witness in Court:
A member of the public who was in the courtroom and observed Crown Counsel's conduct made a formal written complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada. Her complaint raised the following regulatory issues:
1. Crown Counsel was disrespectful to the trial judge by refusing to comply with her order;
2. Crown Counsel was disrespectful to the witness - badgering her and raising his voice at her**; and
3. The witness, a member of the public, stated, "I sat in stunned disbelief at the disrespect that the Crown showed to Justice Brewer by going against her order to take 15 minutes break."
Law Society of
Upper Canada Response
"After reviewing the information your provided, we have found that the concerns you raise are not something that the Law Society can deal with. We can only act on complaints that provide information suggesting a lawyer had done something contrary to our Rules of Professional Conduct. As you aware, Mr. Rinaldi is a Crown Attorney. As it appears your concerns about him relate to the exercise of his discretion within the context of his position as a representative of the Crown, you may address your concerns to: The Ministry of the Attorney General, 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K1."
On the other hand, the Law Society of Upper Canada has sent Crown Counsel's complaint against defence counsel, E.J. Guiste, to a formal hearing some six years after the fact and counting. The Law Society of Upper Canada Notice of Hearing asserts that defence counsel was disrespectful to the trial judge and Crown Counsel - even though the trial judge never made any such complaint and went on to acquit defence counsel's client.
I was fully successful in defending my client. Yes - not guilty ! The learned trial judge found that my client did not assault his spouse her sister assaulted her causing injury to her eye. More than five years later I am forced to defend myself against this Crown Attorney's complaint against me to the Law Society of Upper Canada - as they were known then.
How is this in the public interest ?
Is the late Eddie Greenspan Right ?
One of Canada's best criminal lawyers had the following to say about the regulators tendency to prosecute defence lawyers but not prosecutors: "The Law Society does not enhance its reputation by selectively prosecuting defence counsel for alleged misconduct in the face of the court, but not prosecutors. And such prosecutions will have a chilling effect on advocates." (Edward Greenspan
and L. David Roebuck, "The Horrible Crime of Incivility - Globe and Mail - August 2, 2012)