top of page

The Brother’s Ear: Speculation, Weak Instruction, and Other Shortcomings in Schneider by Lisa Haydey and Laraib Khaliqdina

  • Writer: Featured in Robson Crim
    Featured in Robson Crim
  • Nov 14, 2024
  • 2 min read

The Brother’s Ear:

 

Speculation, Weak Instruction, and Other Shortcomings in Schneider


Can a phone conversation between a man and his wife, overheard in part by the man’s brother, be admitted as evidence that the man committed murder? What if the brother who overheard the conversation had been drinking, was under extreme stress, and recalled two different versions of what was said?


This was the complex issue faced by Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), in R v Schneider. William Schneider was charged with the second- degree murder of Natsumi Kogawa. Previously, Schneider’s brother had recognized the accused in a news release which sought help identifying a man photographed with Kogawa, who was reported missing. The next day, the brother visited Schneider to discuss the news release and witnessed Schneider attempting a fatal heroin overdose, which he survived. Schneider then shared the location of Kogawa’s body and walked ten feet away to telephone his wife. The brother could not recall the exact words Schneider used, but he believed that at one point, Schneider said something like “I did it” or “I killed her.”


At trial, the brother’s testimony was admitted and Schneider was convicted of second- degree murder. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, ordering a new trial that excluded testimony from evidence. The case then went to the SCC. In a split seven-two judgment, the Court decided to admit the testimony and reinstate the trial court’s conviction.


In this blog, we will respectfully argue that the majority’s decision to admit the brother’s testimony was flawed at each step of the analysis: at step one, the evidence was speculative and should not have met the relevancy threshold; at step two, the Court should have considered the reliability of the testimony; and at step three, the jury instructions were too weak to counteract the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence. Accordingly, we contend that the trial judge erred in including the brother’s testimony.




Click below to read more:



27 Comments


Alena Walker
Alena Walker
17 hours ago

This piece reminded me of the countless times I questioned the clarity and fairness of academic instruction, especially during my postgraduate research. I recall sitting late into the night, rereading complex theories, unsure if I truly understood them or was just repeating what others had said. When it came time to write my master dissertation I found myself doubting every argument I made. It was only after revisiting foundational texts and engaging in deep discussions with peers that I began to find my voice. This article captures that very struggle the tension between interpretation and instruction so well. Thank you for putting it into words.

Like

David Tremblay
David Tremblay
Jun 18

..

Like

Carrie smith
Carrie smith
Jun 10

Write A+ nursing dissertation can be daunting if you don't know which topic to write your dissertation on. Check out Nursing Dissertation Topics for practical ideas with expert guidance.

Get our write my assignment uk assistance to help you achieve better grades and get well-written assignments.

Like

wisirip643
Jun 04

Our Kennington dry cleaners offer fast, reliable, and eco-friendly cleaning services for all your garments. We treat every item with expert care to ensure the best results. Visit Dry Cleaning Junction in Kennington for convenient, professional dry cleaning you can trust.

Like

Ryan Smith
Ryan Smith
May 16

Anyone else feel like writing a humanities essay is like wandering through a forest with no map? I totally cracked under pressure last month and tried out Native Assignment Help Australia. Honestly, they saved my grade. Their Humanities Assignment Help in Australia isn’t just some generic info dump — they actually build arguments that sound like YOU wrote them (only smarter).

Like
  • Facebook Basic Black
  • Twitter Basic Black

© 2023 Jochelson, Trask

The content on this website is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice or an opinion of any kind. Users of this website are, in all matters, advised to seek specific legal advice by contacting licensed legal counsel for any and all legal issues. Robsoncrim.com does not warrant or guarantee the quality, accuracy or completeness of any information on this website. All items and works published on this website, regardless of their original date of publication, should not be relied upon as accurate, timely or fit for any particular purpose.

bottom of page