1/ A fellow crim defence lawyer @MDRobitaille - who, full disclosure, I have never met in person, but I have seen her speak publicly at @ClaOntario events and I follow her on social media - tweeted something earlier today that put me in mind of a story

2/ Tweeting about the difficulty of exposing liars in cross-examination (which BTW the kids is a lot harder that just yelling "I want the truth" at them), Danielle wrote "Thank god for the presumption of innocence (where it exists)."

3/ I had a very interesting experience recently with a senior Crown on a case, where the only evidence of my client's connection to a particular crime was his DNA on a tallboy found at the scene (which despite what CSI might tell you, is a pretty weak case for conviction)

4/ We agreed to have a judicial pretrial - essentially a conference call with a judge. My intent was to ask whether the Crown had rigorously assessed its reasonable prospect of conviction and would continue to prosecute my client, in light of the paltry evidence.

5/ In e-mails leading up to the JPT, the Crown - again, someone senior - said he/she was looking forward to hearing my client's explanation for how his DNA got on that tallboy at the scene. I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist.

6/ It startled me that a senior, well-respected prosecutor would put write something so grossly at odds with the basic principles of criminal law - i.e. presumption of innocence, and the corollary burden of proof placed solely on the Crown to prove the case against the accused.

7/ I shrugged it off - during the #COVID19Canada pandemic things have been getting more testy and confrontational than when you saw the other side in court. I was sure that Crown had fallen victim to overstatement... that's what they call the moment of foreshadowing #dumdumDUM!

8/ Then we conduct the actual JPT - and the Crown repeats the same line "in front of" the judge! I was floored. I actually commented that I found the Crown's position deeply concerning, as he/she seemed to have forgotten the presumption of innocence and burden of proof

9/ That led to a very testy exchange where the Judge effectively had to separate us and give us each a juicebox so we could cool off. But here's the point...

10/ These fundamental principles are not as set in stone as one might think. As criminal lawyers we must be prepared at any moment to have them questioned or forgotten, even by respected members of our own profession.

11/ If I could give 1 piece of advice to the young lawyers starting out on their careers: these ideals aren't something they teach you if first-year crim class because they have to. They are alive and may be constantly under attack.

12/ Your job is to stand on the bulwark and defend them. Our criminal justice system depends on it.