2nd 1/2 of judge's instructions #snelgroveretrial [but 1st: I will be asking my editor if any1 donated or subscribed over the course of this trial. Independent content requires money. There is no transparency or public access w/o media. Contribute now: https://theindependent.ca/uptheindy/  ]

1/ Now, [ad-free for the rest of this thread!] Judge Handrigan's Instructions regarding Sexual Assault Law: Patrol Officer Constable Carl Douglas Snelgrove [Sn] is charged with sexual assault on Jane Doe [JD] as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada in section 271.

2/ EACH essential element of the charge must be proved for a guilty verdict.
1-Sn applied force on JD.
2-He applied force intentionally.
3-JD did not consent to the force he applied.
4-He knew that she did not consent.
5-The force applied was sexual in nature.

2/ Judge says jury does not have to worry about determing if 1,2 and 5 happened because all parties agree that Sn did "intentionally" "apply force" in a "sexual nature." [application of force in the law here means any contact, not necessarily "forceful" in a colloquial sense.]

3/ Crown must satisfy the jury on points 3 and 4. That she did not consent AND that he KNEW she did not consent. If you are Beyond a Reasonable Doubt [BRD] on these two points, you must find him GUILTY.

4/ Consent must b vol agree. It has to be consent to have that force applied that way, and at that time. Just because she did not resist of "put up a fight" does not mean there was consent. Consent must be "w/o threat of force, fear, fraud or abuse of authority to let it occur."

5/ Jury must take everything into account (nature of contact, words, gestures, other indications) to determine her state of mind. Judge now recaps the events of the evening of Dec 20/21 2014. First from JD's perspective/testimony and then from Snelgrove's.

6/ [TRIGGER WARNING: SEXAUL ASSAULT] A few excerpts from the Judge's recaps: When JD woke up the next morning she concluded she had sex based on her nakedness, her soreness, clothes strew about, and her recall of waking up [at one point] w him having sex w her.

7/ [TW:SA] JD called a friend and told her what happened but declined to call the police bc, in her words, "she was a drunk girl and he was a police officer," and she would be reporting him to his own agency.

8/ [TW:SA] Snelgrove agrees that they had sex, Oral, vaginal, and anal. He says she approached his car and tried to open the door. He says, once in the car, he smelled faint alcohol but it "did not concern him." He said she gave him directions and was coherent and lucid.

9/ [TW:SA] Judge reminds jury that Snelgrove claims she initiated both the kissing and the first sex acts. She says she was too drunk to remember if she consented, [and therefore crown argues] if she was too drunk to remember then she was too drunk to consent.

10/ [TW:SA] Judge says: "intoxication is a state of mind" and jury must look at all the evidence to determine her state of mind and if she was able to consent to the sexual activity. Here the judge goes over other various testimonies and details relevant to her intoxication.

11/ He recaps evidence form both sides. Then he points out one thing the stands out because the lawyers did not point it out: JD called police on Jan 15 2015 "to come get her bc she felt unsafe" [judge's words] one month after the assault.

12/ Judge poses question: did she consider that a male officer, or even Snelgrove himself might answer her call? [so much discussion to be had about this posed question... for another time.]