Dennis Oland murder case waiting on word from the Supreme Court

DennisOlandcould know within weeks whether the country's highest court will review his second-degree murder case, or if it will proceed to a new trial in New Brunswick's Court of Queen's Bench.

The Crown and defence have now both filed all the required documents for their respective requests for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa.

'We will be looking forward to the Supreme Court of Canada decision.'- Bill Teed, Oland family lawyer

Prosecutors are seeking to have Oland'sconviction in the2011 bludgeoning death of his multimillionaire father Richard Oland reinstated, while thedefence filed a cross-appeal, seeking an acquittal instead of a retrial.

The Supreme Court receives about 600 applications for leave to appealeach year. Only about 80 are granted thoseit deemsof national importance.

There is no set timeline for the court to decide whether it will hear the matter, butOland family lawyer Bill Teed said they anticipate a decision in June or July.

"We will be looking forward to the Supreme Court of Canada decision," he said.

• Crown rejects 4 out of 5 issues Dennis Oland's lawyers hope to put to Supreme Court
• 5 reasons Supreme Court should acquit Dennis Oland of murder, defence argues

A jury found Oland guilty of second-degree murder in December2015, and he was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years.

But Oland, 49, was released on bail on Oct. 25, 2016, after the New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturned his conviction, citing an error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury about Oland'sso-called post-offence conduct, and ordered a new trial.

The latest document filed in the case, made public earlier this week,is the defence's reply to the Crown's response to their cross-appeal application to the Supreme Court.

'Unreasonable' verdict

The defence maintains the jury's verdict was "unreasonable," based on the testimony of Anthony Shaw.Hesaid he heard "thumping" noises coming from the victim's Saint John office around 7:30 p.m. or 7:45 p.m. a time when Olandwas recorded on a security video shopping in Rothesaya 15-minute drive away.

The Crown "attempts to undermine the reliability and credibility" of Shaw, according to the defence, by focussing on the fact he didn't check a clock and referred to the time as a "guesstimate."

But the defence notes Shaw tied the time to being before a man came intothe office where he was working to send a fax. The fax was timestamped8:11 p.m.

"In the context of this weak circumstantial case, this evidence demanded that the conviction be set aside and a verdict of acquittal entered," the defence argues.

Forensic testing of jacket challenged

Oland's lawyers also contend police did not have the authority to forensically test his brown sports jacket, which was found to have four small bloodstains on it and DNA matching his father's profile.

Although the Crown suggests the "established practice" is that an item properly seized througha search warrantcan be tested without any further judicial authorization, the defence says "the time has come to require pre-authorization" for forensic examination of seized items.

They note the Supreme Court recently ruled pre-authorization is required for computer searches, "given the unique privacy concerns."

"There is a clear analogy between computer and DNA searches: both provide access to highly personal information through the use of technology that could not have been contemplated in prior generations," the document states.

Incorrect statement to police

The third point of contention deals with the judge's instructions to the jury about Oland'sincorrect statement to police regardingwhat jacket he was wearing when he went to visit his father at his office on July 6, 2011,the night of the murder.

Oland told police he was wearing a navy blazer but video surveillance and witness testimony showed he was actually wearing the blood-stained brown sports jacket.

The case at hand concerns apparently benign conduct, where an innocent inference is at least as compelling as the inculpatory inference urged by the Crown.- Oland defence lawyers

His lawyers argue the judge should have given a special instruction that his "after-the-fact conduct" had "no probative value" in weighing his guilt or innocence unless the jurors had independent evidence it was a lie concocted to conceal his involvement in the murder.

"The case at hand concerns apparently benign conduct, where an innocent inference is at least as compelling as the inculpatory inference urged by the Crown," the document states.

'Dangers' of computer generated evidence

The defence also continues to challenge the reliability and admissibility of evidence extracted from the victim's computers and iPhone call detail records.

"It is fallacious to assume that computers always work properly," they argue.

They urge the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue and rule "in a manner that provides adequate protection against the 'black box dangers' inherent in computer generated evidence."

Cross-examination of accused

The final issue the defence wants the country's highest court to rule on deals with the Crown's cross-examination of an accused.

The defence argues prosecutors should have been required to cross-examine Olandon their "speculative" motivethat he flew into a rage after an argumentover money or his father's extramarital affair.

They want the Supreme Court to rule the Crown is "obligated to confront the accused with inculpatory inferences it later asks the jury to draw in summation."

Thebody of Richard Oland, 69, was found badly beaten in a pool of blood in hisoffice on July 7, 2011. He had suffered 45 blows to his head,neck and hands. No weapon was ever found.

His son was the last known person to see him alive, during his visit tothe elderOland'soffice the night before.

Dennis Oland's extended family has maintained his innocence from the beginning.

Scheduling a newtrial forOlandhas been postponed until the Supreme Court decides whether it will hear the matter.

Oland is living in Rothesay under conditions, awaiting his new trial.