Court hears arguments on potential witness
Sioux Valley Murder Trial
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
We need your support!
Local journalism needs your support!
As we navigate through unprecedented times, our journalists are working harder than ever to bring you the latest local updates to keep you safe and informed.
Now, more than ever, we need your support.
Starting at $15.99 plus taxes every four weeks you can access your Brandon Sun online and full access to all content as it appears on our website.
Subscribe Nowor call circulation directly at (204) 727-0527.
Your pledge helps to ensure we provide the news that matters most to your community!
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Brandon Sun access to your Winnipeg Free Press subscription for only
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
*$1 will be added to your next bill. After your 4 weeks access is complete your rate will increase by $4.99 a X percent off the regular rate.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/01/2025 (247 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
Lawyers arguing in the murder trial of a woman from the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation tried to present arguments aimed at establishing the credibility of a witness that is yet to appear before Justice Elliot H. Leven of Brandon’s Court of King’s Bench.
On Monday, Crown attorney Brett Rach and defence lawyer Robert D. Harrison disagreed on whether Steven Desjarlais could be a credible enough witness to provide further evidence in the trial. They also spoke about whether sufficient efforts have been made to subpoena Desjarlais for testifying in court.
In response, Justice Leven said he needs to review transcripts from the police before deciding for certain whether Desjarlais is actually evading appearance as a witness in this trial, or if he is aware of the attempts made to reach him. The justice said he will rule on the matter on Tuesday.
The trial relates to the alleged murder by stabbing of 26-year-old Naomi Hope Williams, a resident of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation in December of 2022. At the time, Virden RCMP arrested Rennie Williams — a relative of the victim — on charges of second-degree murder, who is currently being tried for murder.
Desjarlais, who was present at the residence of Chad Roscelli on the night of Naomi Williams’ alleged murder, provided police with a statement following the incident.
The Crown has been trying to reach Desjarlais for a court appearance to provide his account under oath. However, attempts by the Crown and police to track him down prior to and during the trial have been unsuccessful to this point, and the defence claimed there is no proof that Desjarlais is actually evading the justice system.
“So we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, frankly, that Mr. Desjarlais could know about the trial. It’s quite clear from the police report that he wasn’t from Sioux Valley. So I mean, I would submit that certainly late spring or early summer the crown, or the police subpoenaed that Mr. Desjarlais in there evidence wasn’t from there. But it’s interesting, it looks like nothing was done till November, which is six weeks before trial,” Harrison said before acknowledging a lack of evidence that Desjarlais even received these notices and emails sent to him by the court, and from police.
“If the Crown had confirmation he’d received these messages, I probably wouldn’t be making an argument. I may have considered just letting it go in but that’s not the case. The Crown mentioned Mr. Desjarlais could talk about my client having a knife and the premium evidence is equally important. We look at trustworthy. His eyesight was terrible. He wasn’t wearing glasses, and he just said his evidence was a blur. He was six feet away. His focus seemed to be on the shining of the knife. So I don’t think that evidence is even trustworthy,” said Harrison, questioning the value of Desjarlais’s testimony.
Crown attorney Rach argued that sufficient efforts to reach Desjarlais were made, and that it’s logical to conclude that he is purposely evading their request for him to take the stand as a witness in this trial.
“Obviously, I can’t prove that he still has an email address that he’s accessing or what not, but with certainty as that this is an address that’s transient with the person. They can access it from all over the place, so it’s not the same way as going to a particular residence. I’d submit that we have stronger evidence in this case that there is evasion of service and that he’s refusing to testify,” Rach said.
“Steven is not a co-accused, so his credibility concerns are lessened, and you also heard from Mr. Roscelli that Steven was sober at the time, so you don’t have him partaking the same drugs that the rest of them were,” Rach added.
Referring to the knife used to stab the victim, Rach highlighted the testimonies of Natalie and Jolene Williams, which included that Rennie admitted to killing her cousin with a knife, and to throwing the knife away while walking to their house after she fled Roscelli’s property.
“Certainly, you have the evidence from Natalie or Jolene Williams of what Rennie said when she was at their house that she stabbed Naomi and she threw the knife away on the way there. So we have evidence of a knife and Naomi’s blood was found in Rennie Williams’ clothes,” Rach said prior to Justice Leven expressing concerns about weapon allegedly used for the murder.
“I hear evidence in the future that police found a knife and identified it in some way, or did any testing on it in some way, and if so, where it was found and when it was found, I don’t know. None of that’s before me. There is only as the Crown pointed out some bare assertions about a knife and a knife that was thrown away. Beyond that, I have nothing,” Justice Leven told both the Crown and defence on Monday.
The justice also explained his philosophy in terms of weighing the credibility of evidence from witness testimonies, and he told the court that every submission’s probative value needs to outweigh any prejudicial effect in order to be admissible before the court.
“The test is, in general, whether probative value weighed against prejudicial effect, whether one outweighs the other. In this case, the prejudicial effect of allowing all the evidence is extremely prejudicial to the accused, and the probative value is, I don’t want to use the word trivial, but almost trivial given the fact that the accused, according to Ms. Hapa, brandished a knife in a cover, or brandished something she called a knife, which was in a cover, has only the most minimal of probative value,” Justice Leven said.
Proceedings in the trial will resume this morning when a forensic pathologist is expected to take the stand to submit empirical evidence on whether the knife in question was used by Rennie Williams for the alleged murder.
The accused, Rennie, is also expected to address the court with a statement before closing arguments are made on Wednesday.
» dstein@brandonsun.com
» X: @davidpstein_