While the lawyers of the two parties spoke at length about the credibility of their respective psychiatrists during their pleadings, Judge Richard Grenier took the time to guide the jurors in his instructions so that they could properly assess these expert testimonies, at the heart of the debate in the trial of the Halloween killer.
• Read also: Pleadings at the trial of the Halloween killer: a psychosis disappeared in a snap of the fingers
• Read also: Trial of Carl Girouard: the jury should deliberate on Monday
The last step before the jury is sequestered to decide on a verdict in the Carl Girouard case began this morning. Wanting to allow the members of the jury to take advantage of the good weather of the next few days, Judge Richard Grenier presented only part of his directives in order to conclude them on Monday, when the deliberations will have to begin.
The magistrate notably recalled that there was “no room for an acquittal” in this case since the accused admitted to having caused the death of François Duchesne, 56, and Suzanne Clermont, 61, in addition to injure five other people.
The jury will first have to decide on the non-criminal responsibility of the 26-year-old man, on account of mental disorder.
- Listen to Vincent Dessureault at the microphone of Mario Dumont on QUB radio
If they reject this thesis, the jurors will then have to agree on a verdict of murder which may be on the 1er degree, i.e. at 2and degree or even manslaughter. However, the judge has not yet explained in detail the process that the 11 jurors will have to follow to decide.
Expert Testimonials
The quality of the testimonies of the three experts, two from the Crown and one from the defence, will certainly be at the center of the jury’s debates, and the judge gave them some tips for evaluating them.
“Does the witness seem impartial or neutral? Does he appear complacent or biased and inclined to favor the party that summoned him,” the judge explained.
A significant disagreement exists between the conclusions of the two psychiatrists. That of the defense, the Dr Gilles Chamberland, affirms that Carl Girouard suffered from schizophrenia and that he was in full psychotic delirium at the time of the tragedy, so that he could not distinguish good from evil.
Conversely, the psychiatrist Sylvain Faucher, presented by the Crown, concludes rather that the malevolent fantasy of the accused was a carefully considered narcissistic quest against a society that did not recognize its difference.