‘We’re coming for you bro’: Fear factor loomed over Carel Douse murder trial
The juror, a fit-looking man perhaps in his early 30s, heard a voice whisper in his ear, as he exited an elevator in John Sopinka Courthouse downtown.
We're coming for you bro ... We're going to look after you."
The threat to the juror was uttered early in March, during the first-degree murder trial of co-accused Alieu Jeng and Daniel Wise.
The victim, 33-year old Carel Douse, was stabbed to death in May 2019, his body slashed 19 times.
The task for Crown prosecutors Brian Adsett and Rose Branton was convincing the jury that Jeng and Wise were guilty of planning and executing Douse's murder, beyond a reasonable doubt."
Wise's lawyer, Tyler Smith, pointed out in court that the Crown's case was circumstantial.
The attack had begun at 3 a.m. inside a dimly lit barbershop on King Street East converted into a makeshift bar. There were no security cameras inside, and not one witness had come forward to testify to seeing Douse's killers in the act with clarity.
Video outside showed Jeng and Wise chasing Douse, and forensic evidence proved that he had bled inside the bar and on the sidewalk, but no murder weapon was found.
And early in the trial, the juror informed Justice Toni Skarica about the threat, and that he had told his fellow jurors what happened.
It raised the spectre of a mistrial.
In court, Skarica called the incident disturbing, highly unusual and an attempt to obstruct justice."
But he added that he did not want it to derail" the trial.
Were the jurors compromised by the threat? Would they be concerned enough for their safety that they would ask to leave a murder trial in which the central theme of the prosecution was retribution?"
The judge suggested a plan to the Crown and defence lawyers: he would question each juror and ask if they could continue serving effectively.
The threat was one example of the fear factor that loomed over the prosecution of Jeng and Wise.
A less ominous incident - but one that Skarica noted - had occurred at the start of the trial, in the courtroom out of earshot of the jury, when a man in the gallery had been overheard saying: I hope you have our backs."
And fear of a different kind was evident in the early hours of the Douse homicide investigation four years earlier, when a crowd gathered outside a home on East Avenue North where Douse lay dying on the front porch.
Don't talk to the police," was the message a uniformed Hamilton police officer heard at the scene, as he tried to collect information from potential witnesses.
I remember being upset and disappointed; they didn't want to work with us," said Const. Lucas Cadet-Herchenroder in court.
But a moment perhaps critical to the investigation happened later that morning, at Hamilton General Hospital, where Douse was receiving multiple but ultimately futile blood transfusions.
More than 30 people filled a waiting room waiting to hear if he would survive.
Homicide detectives were there attempting to record statements.
Most were not saying a word.
Off to the side, Douse's mother, Caron, spoke with Hamilton police homicide investigators Staff Sgt. Catherine Lockley and Sgt. Shane Coveyduck.
The police officers said they needed her help.
Moments later, Caron Douse stood with the officers and addressed the group.
You are all showing support for Carel by being here," she announced. And if you know something, tell the police. Or else get out."
We felt resistance initially," Coveyduck told the Spectator. Sometimes it's difficult for people to come forward because they're scared. They wonder if unintended consequences will come their way. And there are some who typically don't want to co-operate with police."
Homicide investigators say there are ways police can protect the identity of witnesses who offer information, depending on the case. And the Crime Stoppers hotline, for example, invites anonymity.
But Crown prosecutors also need witnesses willing to testify in open court, in front of the accused, and where media is sometimes present.
Police say that forcing a witness to testify can backfire, if the witness provides contradictory or false information on the stand.
Investigators struggled to uncover the real names of potential witnesses in the Douse homicide, including those who had been in the bar where he was attacked.
One of these was the DJ who played music that night, known even to friends simply by the nickname High Fashion."
We didn't know their identities," said Lockley.
One key witness who testified had initially only known of Wise as Fat Al," until he left his ID at her home one day.
Wise was also known as Berta," while Jeng was Braids" or Fresh."
Some witnesses had their own issues with breaking the law: two of them had criminal records.
One of these witnesses turned her cellphone over to police to assist the investigation, because it contained text messages incriminating Wise.
But the phone also had texts that could have incriminated herself for threatening violence in an unrelated case. She was investigated but not charged, and testified in the trial.
A key witness who identified Wise fleeing the scene was himself arrested the night of the homicide but released by police. He had been carrying a knife - for his own protection, he said.
He told detectives that he wanted to help in the investigation but also didn't want to get involved." In the end, he testified.
Jennifer Clark, Carel Douse's longtime girlfriend, told the Spectator some witnesses feared the stigma of being labelled a rat" or snitch."
Alisha Livingstone, a close friend of Clark's who attended the trial, said she believes the reluctance to get involved is not linked to ethnicity or socio-economic status.
Instead, she said, it is a mentality that's been instilled in them from when they were young," and reinforced by movies and TV shows.
Coveyduck, who works in the intelligence branch, says rapport building with witnesses is a critical part of the job.
Police and the community have to work together," he said. It needs to be a partnership for these prosecutions to succeed, to make the world a safer place."
In the end, the Crown needed witnesses willing to testify, but also for the jury to stick it out despite the implicit potential threat to their safety.
The morning after the elevator incident, Justice Skarica addressed the lawyers with the jury absent, reading the note describing the threat.
Skarica then canvassed each of the 11 jurors, one by one.
The first juror entered the stillness of the courtroom, closed to all but the lawyers.
A mistrial was almost certain if the number of jurors dropped below ten, the minimum required for a murder trial.
Skarica described the details of the threat: We're coming for you bro," whispered by a man wearing a toque and dark green jacket.
Hearing this," continued Skarica, do you believe you can continue to decide this case fairly and impartially if the trial continues?"
Yes," she replied.
And do you wish to be excused (from serving)?"
No."
The juror left and the next entered.
Skarica repeated details of the threat, and repeated the two questions.
The juror said he too would continue to serve.
When it was the eleventh and final juror's turn, she listened to the questions.
She paused a long beat.
And agreed to continue.
All 11 gave the same answers. The trial resumed.
Skarica requested a police investigation into the threat, and ordered unusual security measures for the remainder of the trial: two armed police officers accompanying jurors to and from the courthouse each morning and afternoon, and on every break.
The jury began its deliberations Thursday afternoon, March 23. The next day, just after noon, the jury foreperson stood in court.
She read the verdicts for Jeng and Wise: Both guilty of first-degree murder.
Skarica paid tribute to the jurors.
You could have easily dropped out," he said. You all showed tremendous courage. People have lost faith in our institutions, but the one institution that has never let us down is our system by jury. I'm very grateful. You should be proud, because it's people like you that keep our democracy healthy and viable."
After the verdicts, Clark read a victim impact statement in court, shaking with emotion describing the pain she felt losing her partner.
At least two of the jurors had tears in their eyes.
Later, Clark spoke to the Spectator in the hallway.
There were so many people (in the bar) that night, but they didn't want to talk to the police," she said. I feel like if there were more witnesses testifying, there wouldn't have been any doubt."
Moments later, together with a group of friends who had been at her side each day of the four-week trial, Clark left the building.
At that same time, jurors also began to file out.
One of them chatted with a uniformed police officer, who escorted him out of the courthouse one last time, before the juror continued alone, a cold wind in his face.
Jon Wells is a feature writer at The Spectator. jwells@thespec.com