Dennis Oland doesn't have to prove anything, judge reminds jury

The judge presiding at DennisOland's second-degree murder trial in Saint John began his instructions to the jurors on Tuesday byreminding them that the accused ispresumed innocent and doesn't have to prove anything.

It's up to the Crown to prove itscase beyond a reasonable doubt, stressed Justice John Walsh of the Court of Queen's Bench.

The jury must be convincedthat Oland killed his father, prominent New Brunswick businessman Richard Oland, on or about July 6, 2011,that he did so unlawfully, and that he meant to kill him or cause him bodily harm that he knew would likely cause his death.

• Live blog:Dennis Oland jury to receive instructions from judge
• On mobile? Get live coverage of the trial here

It is not enough to believe the accused is probably or likely guilty, said Walsh.

But he added it isalmost impossible to prove anything to absolute certainty.

Reasonable doubt, he explained, is based on common sense and arises from either the evidenceor lack of evidence.

Richard Oland's bludgeoned body was discovered lying face down in a pool of blood in his Saint John office on the morning of July 7, 2011.

The 69-year-old multimillionairehad suffered 45 sharp and blunt force injuries to his head, neck and hands. No weapon was ever found.

Dennis Oland, 47, who was the last known person to see his father alive duringa meeting at his office the night before, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

Instruction to the jury

Walsh told the jurors his job is to review the evidence presented over the past three monthsand to instruct them on the law, which he expects will take up to two days, given thenature of the case and length of the trial. Their jobis to assess the evidence impartially and decidethe facts, he said.

The veteran judge cautioned jurorson dealing withcircumstantial evidence in the case. They mustdistinguish between inference and speculation, he said, citing police speculation that a drywall hammer may have been thepossible murder weapon as an example.

The pathologist who conducted the autopsy was neverasked to compare any potential weapon to the victim's injuries, even though he wouldhave had the expertise to give an opinion if asked, said Walsh.

For the jury to find a drywall hammer was the weapon used would be"pure speculation and conjecture," he said. It "might be a base for public gossip, but it is not for you as judges."

Walsh said the jurors should rely only on the evidence they have seen and heard during the trial and make a decision without sympathy, prejudice or fear.

They must not be influenced by public opinion, he said, adding that was the promise they made when they were sworn in.

Blood, DNA on accused's jacket

Much of Tuesday's instructions focused on the bloodstained brown Hugo Boss sports jacket seized from Oland's bedroom closet a weekafter his father's body was discovered.

Oland told police he was wearing a navy blazer when he visited his father on the night in question, but video surveillance and witness testimony showed he was actually wearing a brown jacket.

During the trial, the jury heard thatthree small stains found on the right sleeve, upper left chest and on the backwere confirmed to be blood and thatDNA extracted from those areas matched the victim's. The chances of it not being the victim's DNA are one in 20 quintillion, a Crown expert testified.

Walsh, who was one of the first lawyers in Canada to use DNA evidence in the 1991 trial of serial killer Allan Legere and is considered one of the country's foremost expertsin the legal application of forensic DNA typing, gave the jurorsa "rather extensive review" of the jacket-related evidence, saying it raises a number of questions for them to consider.

"I know this is a little difficult ladies and gentlemen," he said. "Please bear with me, we'll get through this."

Walsh said there's no way to know whether the DNA actually came from the blood, or from some other DNA source, such as saliva, or sweat.

The jury has heardevidence about Richard Olandbeing"up close and personal" in his social interactions, often leaning in as he spoke to someone and touching them on the arm or back.

Meanwhile, Crown DNA experts testified that in their opinionthe DNA most likely came from the blood.

From slaying, or before?

Similarly, there is no way to know when or how the blood was deposited, said Walsh.

It's up to the jury to decide whether it wasfrom thecrime scene or a previous occasion, he said.

The accusedtestified his father sometimes had blood on him from chewinghis cuticles and scratching scabs on his scalp.He also recounted at least one occasion whenhis father had handled his jacket.

Oland's account was not challenged by the Crown during cross-examination, but Walsh pointed outthat does not indicate acceptance. The jurors must decide on Oland's credibility, he said.

The judgealso discussed the testimonyof two bloodstain experts about the amount of blood the killer would have had on him or her.

Defence expert Patrick Laturnussaid there would have been a "significant" amount on the assailant. If Oland's brown sports jacket had been worn during the slaying, it would have had "so much blood" on it, it would have been visible in a photograph, despite its dark colour, he said.

Crown expert RCMP Sgt. Brian Wentzell, however, could not say how much blood would have gotten on the killer. He said it would depend on the positions of the victim and assailant, as well as the type of weapon.

A blunt surface, for example, could cause blood to go in all directions, while the small surface area of a sharp edge would disperse blood to the sides, rather than back at an attacker,Wentzell said.

Effect of dry cleaning unclear

Walsh noted neitherLaturnusnorWentzellcould say if the bloodstains on the jacket werespatter stains that are created either from force beingapplied to a liquid blood source, or from castoff from an object, such as a weapon, or from blood being expelled from the nose or mouth.

He also noted, however, that the jacket had been dry cleaned the day after police told Oland he was a suspect, and it's unclear from the evidence what, if any, effect that process would have on the stains.

Walsh cautioned the jurors about the technical dry cleaningquestions the defence asked VIP Dry Cleaners' co-owner Jin Hee Choi, who deals with the administrative side of the business.

Choi agreed under questioning by Alan Gold that if a bloodstain isn't broken down before being heated up in the dry cleaning process, it will become fixed in the fabric.

Walsh said her answer should "carry very little, if any weight" because it was an opinion she was not declared qualified to give.

"I can tell you, if I were making any decisions, I would not rely on her answers," he said.

Power outage delays proceedings

The jurors have beensequestered overnight, and Walsh is scheduled to continue giving his instructions to them on Wednesday at 9 a.m. AT.

Walsh had told jurors his charge could take up to two full days. It's unclear if or how a power outage at the Saint John Law Courts building on Tuesday afternoon will affect the schedule.

The fifth floor courtroom went dark at 1:51 p.m., other than thelight from the lawyers' and reporters' laptops. No emergency lights came on.

The jurors were escorted out by a sheriff and everyone in the crowded gallery was asked to leave and to take the stairs down to the third floor lobby.

It'sunclear what caused the outage, which followedan electrical firein a utility closet that forced the closure of the building for three days over concerns about air quality. Apower supply battery bankfor the building's emergency lights was the source of thefire, officials have said.

Power was restored Tuesday at about 2 p.m., but the courtroom was soon evacuated againbecause the outage had affected therecording equipment and all proceedings must be recorded.

The trial resumed around 3:20p.m.Walsh apologized to the jurors, who were sequestered in the judges' lounge throughout the recess. He joked they're not allowed to tell anyone how nice the lounge is.

Once Walsh has completed giving his instructions on Wednesday,one of the 13 jurors will be eliminated by a random draw.

The extra juror was in place as a safeguard, given the length of the trial, in case anyone got sick or was unable to serve for some other reason.

The remaining 12 jurors will then begin deliberations and remain sequestered until they reach a unanimous verdict.