Police Investigations 101
Lessons for Prosecutors from William Deverell’s First Novel Needles
Gilles Renaud | Ontario Court of Justice (1995-2023)
Introduction
In 1979, William Deverell’s title, Needles, [reprinted by ECW Press, Toronto, 2002] won the $50,000 Seal First Novel Prize and the Book of the Year Award. His career as a writer began as a journalist, including positions with The Canadian Press in Montreal, the Vancouver Sun and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, the latter being his source of income during his legal studies at the University of Saskatchewan.
As a trial lawyer, he appeared in over a thousand civil rights and criminal cases, including more than thirty murders, prosecuting as well as defending, and these briefs included appeals.[1] Of course, his success as a litigator is now obscured by his fame as a writer. Writing dozens of highly acclaimed legal novels will do that for your reputation! If you have not had the pleasure of reading one of his books, please go to the library, the bookstore or one of those computer sites that permits you to have this, and other great titles, in your hands overnight. Indeed, anyone wishing to make the best of an otherwise dull flight, or train trip or long wait, should obtain one of his books and read for hours of pleasure. Moreover, if you are a litigation lawyer, I suggest that you keep a pencil handy, as I do, and underline every useful illustration of trial tactics, cross-examination, and instruction on human nature, not to overlook the means of “judging” judges, lawyers, police officers and witnesses in general, that his writings provide in abundance.
Indeed, all his books are quite useful to prosecutors wishing to understand tactics that their defence colleagues might employ[2], and Needles may be the best in that one follows closely the travails of Mr. Foster Cobb as the beleaguered Crown seeking to demonstrate the guilt of a reputed heroin importer and sadistic murderer.
Discussion
Demeanour evidence
Eyes, look me in the
It is a staple of this type of weak circumstantial evidence that triers of fact, police officers, lawyers and judges, etc., assign great value to the ability of a credible and reliable witness to sustain the glare of the person they are addressing. See page 52 for example: “… Do I shock you? Tell me if I am evil. Do you think I am evil? Look me in the eyes.” I am no fan of such unreliable and highly subjective form of truth gathering information, especially of the reputed value of eye investigations.[3] We read at page 103 and elsewhere in the novel how the Crown, Mr. Cobb, sought eye contact with jurors, “… hoping he was reaching them, relating to them.” Noteworthy as well is this statement, found on page 189: “… when cops give false evidence, they don’t look you in the eyes.” Indeed, the Crown is quoted as saying: “Look me in the eyes, witness, and tell me the truth.” Indeed, defence counsel stated to his junior that his witness, the police officer, was lying judging from his eyes. See page 194.
Face
Consider this excellent example: “He is, as well, anxious, and this shows in the set of his face. He has first-act jitters, an edginess fuelled by a fourth cup of coffee …” See page 96. Later, at page 99, we read how Mr. Cobb, the Crown, stammered and repeated words and stated “un” and “er” more often than was seemly.
Hands
Mr. Cobb [the Crown] suggests on page 189: “Always watch a man’s hands …” when he is testifying. Some hold on to railing as are subject to drink, or excess nerves, etc.
Imperceptible movement
Page 99 includes this example: “… [The Crown] realized his words had connected with [the judge]. The judge said nothing, but there had been an almost imperceptible nod of the head, a pursing of the lips, a movement forward in his seat…”
Look
Page 54 includes this less controversial element of demeanour evidence: “She gave him a look that said she was disgusted, giving up on him.”
Human nature
Abuse of a position of authority
The senior Crown is described at page 21 as casually engaged in sexual assault of a woman employed in a secretarial position who would have no choice but to have to associate with her assailant – adding insult to injury, he casually dismisses his violence as being inherent.
Criminal defence lawyer’s motivation
Mr. Cobb stated on page 200: “… Usual criminal-lawyer mix of drive, bullshit and childhood trauma…”
Deterrence within the criminal world exercised by their leaders
“… deterrence is necessary in maintaining integrity in business affairs …” is a sentence pronounced by the accused, Dr. Au, as he tortures his victim-employee to punish him for co-operation with the police, prior to killing him. See page 7.
Ethics – of the prosecution
There is no room for situational ethics. Refer firstly to the discussion under the rubric “Trial preparation” found under the title “Litigation lessons from Mr. Deverell”. Then, consider that the back page of the novel quotes Mr. Deverell: “Of his time as a lawyer, ‘… those were soul-destroying years. You end up playing the game. Truth doesn’t matter. Winning does …’” In this context, a psychiatrist treating a drug-addled prosecutor opined: “… you suffer from a trial-lawyer syndrome: you hate losing.” See page 57. A few pages later, at 65, we read: “He’s guilty … They don’t come guiltier [the Crown stated]”. “That’s the spirit… That’s thinking like a prosecutor. That’s what I like.” stated his superior.
Fact finding – accents
Counsel must be careful to ensure that any accents that are evident are not obstacles to a full understanding by jurors. They might have to be more deliberate in their approach, or to resort to interpreters if justice requires such a step.
Fact finding - drug addicts
We are informed at page 57 that a psychiatrist is of the opinion that “Who can believe a junkie? I’ve never known an honest junkie…” Whatever views you may hold on this precise controversy, what is of paramount importance is the distinction between reliability and credibility. The value that may be assigned to the evidence of such a person may be lessened by reason of their addiction and lessening of critical faculties, but this relatively frail judgment is less a matter of honesty than reliability.
Forgive our friends
Mr. Deverell wrote on page 326, through the intervention of Mr. Cobb: “… There is a line from Bacon somewhere: ‘We are told to forgive our enemies. But we are not often told to forgive our friends.’ I forgive my friend…”
Humour in court
A good example is found on page 118. An elderly witness is cross-examined closely by defence counsel as to his vision issues over a few pages, and he is then asked, “Have you had your eyes checked recently?” and he states without hesitation: “Ay. In the last few seconds …”
“I don’t sell myself for a cup of coffee
This is what we read on page 192 during the perjured testimony of the soon to be disagreed police officer. The Crown immediately states: “Well, how much do you sell yourself for?” [Emphasis in original]
Judging those whose life is so different from ours
Mr. Deverill expressed the issue as follows: “Many had tried to understand him [the defendant], and failed. What beggar can fathom the soul of a Kahn [king]?” See page 100.
“Mouth is the primary source of calamities.”
Stated by Dr. Au at page 7. Statement refers to the betrayal of his accomplice in co-operating with police after arrest, with a view to avoiding prosecution.
Police distrust of other police officers
At times, police officers will confess to a very parochial view of their functions. As we read at page 110: “… cops are paranoid, drugs don’t trust homicide, homicide don’t trust …”
Substance abuse and litigators losing their skills
The author wrote at page 19 of Mr. Foster Cobb “… Before he went on the bottle, he had been a courtroom lawyer of high reputation …” Of course, it was not just alcohol, as we would read, but this phrase portends the many books devoted to Arthur Ramsgate Beauchamp, Q.C., O.C., who would fight the demons of alcohol for so many decades.
Trust reposed in those whom one employs
We read the accused state, as he murders his employee: “… It is taught that one does not employ a person one distrusts, but one must trust a person one employs…” See page 6.
Litigation lessons from Mr. Deverell
Accusations of perjury must be made “politely”
We read on page 214 that Mr. Cobb told the police officer: “I suggest you are a bought liar.” Further down, Mr. Deverell counsels that “Such accusations are required to be more subtly put in a courtroom.”
Criminal record being raised in cross-examination to test credibility
In effect, if the defendant was honest and adopted each of the various entries on their record, their credit was not attacked any further and the jury would be told not to assign weight to it – in effect, as we read at page 85: “A criminal record! And it’s all admissible – just to test his credibility, of course. We wouldn’t want a jury to convict him just because he’s an a… with a dozen or I don’t know how many … convictions…”
Cross-examining in an identity case
An excellent yet dated example is seen on pages 118-119 on what is now described as a cross-racial identity situation. Indeed, once defence counsel had satisfied himself (and he hoped, the jury) of the very tenuous nature of the suggested identification, he offered the witness an array of twenty photos and asked the witness to study them without looking at his client. The witness thought that two photos might be of the person, which is already a very useful defence reply. He then noted that the photo of his client was included but not selected. If the witness successfully selects the accused, counsel will argue it was totally random, and if more than one is chosen, the situation is even more felicitous for the defendant.
Cross-examining police in general
Asking one police officer to criticize another
An example is seen on page 123. Defence counsel suggested to one police witness that an earlier police officer had not seen anything of concern as to the suggested scene of the crime, leading the experienced one to state: “All it suggests is that Constable pen may not be very observant.” When counsel asked if his colleague was smart, Harrison replied: “I haven’t run an IQ test on him. He’s young. He is learning.” One might have been more diplomatic but the figure of Harrison is bound to comply with his oath.
“I guess” type response
Consider how ably defence counsel was able to manipulate a too broad response, on page 108. After asking a precise question, defence counsel was told by the officer:
“I don't know how well.”
“You mean you don't know, period.” [Defence counsel’s voice had become impatient.”
“Well, I guess I don't.”
“I know-it-all” type of police officer
We encounter this type on page 122 of the novel Needles: “As a witness, J.O. Harrison could be cocky and bullheaded, too convinced of the rightness of his cause. [Defence lawyer] knew that fact well…”
“I suppose” type response
Consider also how ably defence counsel was able to manipulate this too general a reply, again at page 108. After asking a further precise question, defence counsel was told by the police witness:
“I suppose I would have to agree.”
“Don’t suppose, please. Do you agree?”
“Yes, I supp – yes.”
“Is that a question?”
A first example is found at page 108 when a police officer states: “Are you asking me a question, sir?” This is effective if invoked correctly and not to buy time to think. Indeed, the function of the prosecution is to jump in from time to time to suggest that defence counsel is “making a speech”, as seen as well at page 108.
“Poker-faced police witness”
This expression is consigned on page 184.
“You are entitled to your theories”
Page 126 sets out an interesting example of a police officer being asked to consider the possibility that a witness knew a lot about the crime, by reason of the fact he committed the crime, not the accused. Officer Harrison replied: “You got a right to your theories.”
“You are a trained investigator!”
This type of suggestion arises in scenarios in which the defence wish to establish that the scene certainly suggested that no crime was evident at a precise time and will seek to show that if a crime had been committed by that moment, such and such a clue would have been evident. Consider the example offered by Mr. Deverell on page 115:
“You saw no blood?”
“There might have been. It was a butcher store. I wasn't looking.” The young officer was nervous and kept clearing his throat
“Oh come now, constable, … do you wish us to understand that you have no eyes and no training in the art of detecting simple indicia of crime? If there was blood about the room, as some people want us to believe, you as a trained observer would have noticed it. Yes?”
“I would hope so”.
“And you didn't, because there wasn't any there, and a trained observer like yourself would have seen it…”
Cross-examining police on photos or evidence not mirroring the suggested factual basis
It is not uncommon for witnesses to be called by either side in a criminal trial in which it is suggested in cross-examination that the photos, by way of limited example, fail to capture the scene precisely. For example, photos of trees framing the front living room window are presented, taken in December, though the crime was committed in August when the leaves were full, not already fallen. At page 107, defence counsel points out that photos of an adjoining window were taken during the daytime, not at night when the contested “view” was apparently seen. As we read on page 107, “How is that to help us? It’s misleading, constable. During the night, that street is dark. There are no streetlights, are there? … You want to be fair to the jury, don't you, constable?
Crown in litigation is not a true advocate
“In all his years of prosecuting, Cobb had rarely failed to display the impersonality that is proper in an advocate of the Crown, but he felt deeply and personally involved now - …”
Cutting off a response by opposing witnesses
At page 107, defence counsel is seen to cut off a full reply by a Crown witness with the words “Thank you. That is all.” In my experience, trial judges have the right to hear the full answer if they wish to but the Crown did not raise an objection… I have seen defence and prosecution counsel raise such a point subsequently in final submissions, underscoring this concern lest the jury hear helpful information. In non-jury cases, I have been told by counsel, “Your Honour no doubt noted on Tuesday last, at 3:39, when my friend intervened with zeal to stop the witness … from completing her testimony on the point of the angle of the trajectory …”
Defence counsel and lying client or witness
The quote that Mr. Deverell offers at page 101 on this subject follows: “He hoped the [police officer he was calling to establish an alibi] would prove honest – or a convincing liar.” Recall how Deverell opined that in criminal defence practice, winning became paramount over ethics after a period…
Detention order in respect of drug traffickers
Mr. Deverell offers an example of this nature on page 172. The Justice of the Peace observing: “… You and I both know that fellows like this, if they’re let back on the street, will only continue to push their wares…”
Dity trick – Undercover officer slept with defence witness
This is made plain on page 239.
Fact finding by jurors when judging truly evil persons
The prosecution must often make deals with killers and Crown’s often muse, as does Mr. Cobb, “Perhaps … this juror would find a man like [this killer] too untrustworthy to be believed, would find that [he] had made up evidence to frame [the accused] and buy a cheaper sentence for himself…” See page 102 and the Crown’s solution is to attempt, as far as possible, to defuse the likely attack on such a person’s character and veracity by initiating much of it himself, in anticipation.
Fairness to the jury is emphasized during jury trials
The scene discussed earlier at the rubric entitled “Cross-examining witnesses on photos or evidence not mirroring the suggested factual basis” includes the useful phrase “You want to be fair to the jury, don’t you, constable.”
Fees earned by successful lawyers
The author quotes Shakespeare at page 25: “Good counsellors lack no clients”: Measure for Measure, Act 1, sc. ii, l. 101. Spoken by Pompey to Mistress Overdone.
Judges do not like being upbraided to any degree by counsel
This is illustrated by the dialogue found on page 223. The last line reads: “Proceed … when you have gone too far, I will let you know.”
Judges will “even up” their rulings
The discussion found on pages 98-100 illustrates the belief help by many trial lawyers, and by no judge that I know, that if a member of the judiciary rules for one side in a hotly contested issue may be a further ruling down the road that tends to correct any perceived imbalance. As we read, “… [defence counsel] hoped to exact a price – the judge, needing to appear fair, might lean toward the defence upon a subsequent issue.”
Knowing the answer to a question put to a witness
A sound example of the danger of not knowing the response is found on page 121. Typically, counsel will ask if the responses cannot be harmful, whatever they might be.
Motivation of a witness against the accused
Evidence of bias is always helpful in discrediting any witness, and we read on page 130 that defence counsel had been successful in demonstrating the rancor that one witness had towards the accused.
Negotiating skills
Consider this excerpt from page 83:
… The negotiations with [defence counsel] Pomeroy would be protracted and complex. The young lawyer was a chess player, a shrewd negotiator in the courthouse corridors where bargains were struck. [The accused], who could now afford beer, kept him on because of Pomeroy’s ability to deal his client out of serious trouble.
“Nothing to hide” defence strategy
The learned author writes at page 106 of defence counsel: “The old man was an expert at the -we-have-nothing-to-hide strategy”. The statement follows the defence’s comment to the jury that all of the “medical bafflegab” is admitted sparing the jury from having to wrestle with it. On occasion, the sting of harmful testimony is reduced if read in by Crown counsel; at times, it is not even noticed.
Oath on the Bible and prejudice if not sought
Defence counsel seeks to exploit a non-religious view of the world on page 181 including a person’s contempt for the Bible. One is confident no such slur would be advanced successfully today, as a solemn affirmation is all that is required.
Passion and prosecutors
Noteworthy is this “pep talk” by a senior Crown found on page 112: “… I want you to give that jury hell, Cobb. Fire them up. Loose the hounds on that old fox [defence counsel]. Let slip the dogs of war in there … Passionate oratory, that’s what it takes. There is too little passion in our courts. Win for Her Majesty…” The reference to the “dogs of war” "Dogs of war" is a phrase originating from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: "Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war…” See Act 3, sc. i, l. 270. It is necessary to add that the need for passionate advocacy by Crown counsel is measured against the standard set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boucher, [1955] SCR 16, 1954 CanLII 3, 110 CCC 263, 20 CR 1, [1954] SCJ No 54 (QL). In brief, the prosecution does not set out to win criminal cases but to seek justice.
Pausing for dramatic effect
We read at page 48 of defence counsel “pausing for effect” during a bit of discussion and the prosecutor imagined himself in he shoes of Perry Mason’s prosecutor adversary, Hamilton Burger, who routinely lost every case he took on, poorly aided by Lt. Tragg, the senior police detective, who apparently never arrested a guilty man…[4]
Prosecution does not obtain disclosure of the defence case
This is illustrated in the novel often, and especially at page 102: “So [the Crown] resigned itself to the prosecutor’s handicap: ignorance of the defence, and inability to prepare for it.”
“Reading” the players
The author remarked at page 34 that a young Mr. Cobb “… grew fond of the law’s fragmented logic. He learned how to assess the humor of judges; he learned their weaknesses, prejudices, and strength. …”
Repeating a question in cross-examination to buy time
This is seen on page 219, in order to get a little time wit which to reply to the question.
Reversing the proposition
When the defence lawyer complained that too little time was available to study late discovered information, at a time when there was no mandatory disclosure, Mr. Cobb made much of the fact that the defendant had retained the most experienced, most competent and most celebrated counsel and such concerns did not arise, save for his mere mortal colleagues. See page 99. Indeed, page 100 relates the judge’s description of the defendant’s representative as possessing “consummate ability”.
Slow and deliberate pace of questions
We read on page 148 of a witness for the Crown who complained that Mr. Cobb “… spoke too quickly, and asked too many questions at once…”
Sparing the jury from much of the gore
We read at page 102 that the Crown informed the jury during his opening address: “… I deeply regret that we cannot spare you from this …” and he describes that the evidence will be awful and deeply troubling.
Trial preparation
- Assisting witnesses in advance versus “coaching”
“…. Cobb had then been the junior prosecutor assigned to assist a senior counsel poorly equipped for his task in a case against [the same accused] … The woman had been a poor witness, poorly prepared, terrified under the calm gaze [of the accused’s eyes] …” See page 27. The next page includes this very dangerous remark: “… That’s just a lousy job of coaching by some prosecutor …” Coaching is a very loaded word, and the correct expression and involvement is trial preparation. Lest there be any misunderstanding of the underhanded slant of the word “coaching”, we read right after: “Don’t lay any of your holier-than-thou lawyer bullcrap on me. Fos. Any good prosecutor will do what he has to do …” Refer as well to page 132 on the subject of cross-examining a criminal witness who is testifying for the prosecution prior to being called to the stand.
- Careful pre-trial preparation illustrated
Readers will be mindful that Needles was written years before the duty to disclose was enshrined by the case of R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326. Thus, what follows must be understood within the context of a defence lawyer seeking further information two weeks before trial having been deprived of a preliminary hearing due to a direct indictment and not being entitled to discovery of the fruits of the investigation:
Your Lordship knows – and my learned fried knows – that I am not a follower of that less-than-professional practice followed by some inexperienced members of the bar of beginning preparation for a trial only a few days in advance of it. I begin when I am retained. I have been retained for three months. I am not prepared for trial. I will not be prepared or trial until I have examined, digested, and considered every aspect of every word written in every statement taken from every witness. If I am not in possession of the material which we are discussing within the week, I shall formally bring on the adjournment application.[5] [Refer to page 45]
Clothes that the defendant should wear
Mr. Deverell sets out at page 97 that Dr. Au took his lawyer’s advice and did not don any expensive jewellry in front the of the jury.
Courtroom is a strange place
This is a truism that cannot be overlooked as so many witnesses appear ill at ease and to little, if anything, is done to assist them. Review the contents of page 150.
Judicial intervention to ensure a correct understanding
Defence counsel is upset that a judge is asking questions during his cross-examination and states, “My lord … I am in cross-examination” and His Lordship responds: “I am sorry, but it requires to be made absolutely clear. Was the accused there, witness?” Counsel may not wish a definitive response.
Pre-Charter police procedures and tactics
Introduction
Page 3 includes this fascinating comment about the plight of the murder victim, a criminal associate of Dr. Au, the accused trafficker-murderer, especially difficult to understand in the case of modern litigators who were born after April 17, 1982, the date of the signing of our modern Canadian Constitutional regime and the coming into force of the Charter: “… he had been in conversations with a certain narcotics officer who had blackmailed him – quite properly by standard RCMP procedure – and taken information from him.” Details are provided at page 7 to the effect that “… Corporal Cudlipp, in his treachery, made me know that if I did not help to jail you, he would speak to you of my earlier indiscretions – and that you would kill me.”
Apprenticeship in police work leading up to 1982
As the author notes at page 12, Corporal Cudlipp “… learned well the mechanics of the courtroom, and he served in barren little Legion Hall courthouses as clerk, as prosecutor, as friend and adviser to the local lay magistrate, and occasionally as informal counsel to the smiling, obsequious town drunk…” Today, it seems impossible to imagine that the court system included many non-trained trial judges who might ask a police officer for guidance as to their duties…
Blackmail by police officers to obtain information from criminals
Refer to the introductory paragraph of “Pre-Charter police procedures and tactics”. In effect, he would be murdered because of the perfidy of the RCMP officer who had sacrificed him on the altar of his cupidity.
Choke holds
The author noted wryly at page 13: “… A careful cop could enjoy a little workout occasionally, especially if it became necessary to prevent the suspect from swallowing the evidence”. In other words, a choke hold together with other uses of force.
Committing crimes in investigating crime
Mr. Deverell refers to the police officer consuming pot in undercover work at page 12 and to “… the young toughs with big mouths who learned their lessons in back alleys or up against the hood of a police car.” See page 13.
Denial of access to, or contact with a lawyer
Refer to pages 79-81 and recall the background that did not include the Charter based rights. There was a much-contested Bill of Rights entitlement to contact a lawyer. Indeed, the end of the denial of access embraced brutality.
Exhibit lockers being interfered with
“Stolen from” is a better description of what Corporal Cudlipp did at page 16 when he removed some narcotics from a seizure that had been weighed to be able to have a supply with which to “frame” a suspect.
Planting evidence upon a suspect
Refer to the discussion under the rubric “Exhibit lockers being interfered with”.
Police denying that they are peace officers
Page 9 illustrates this scenario, albeit involving American police officers, who also snorted some of the heroin being pursued in an undercover capacity.
Protecting society from hippies
“[Corporal] Cudlipp believed the hippies represented a greater danger to his preferred way of life than did the bandits and [fraud] artists who shared society’s concern with material values…” This led, as described at page 13, to so-called “hippie rodeo”, a police sweep on a large scale.
Recording of interviews and confessions
I am always amazed, having been called in 1983, a year after the Charter was enacted, to read of a statement of this nature in 1979: “… Now, there’s a tape recorder here, and we’re going to leave it on, because I always like to have a complete and accurate record of what’s said, so there can be no questions if this goes to court.” For at least a decade after I began practice, until disclosure became a reality, police in my experience often refused to tape-record interviews and many times stated that they knew not how such a thing might occur given limited budgets, technological deficits in their detachments and my client’s desire to confess immediately upon arrest … Indeed, I recall asking investigators if they had seen the 1967 Academy-Award Winning movie, In the Heat of the Night, that includes as a closing scene the sheriff of a dirt-poor town turning on a tape-recorder to capture every word of a murderer’s confession!
Threats to obtain confessions
An example is found at page 16: “Cudlipp cheerfully took [the suspect] in tow and in a discussion over coffee told his suspect that such amounts [of narcotics] the practice of the judges was to send [Asians] away for life…” An agreement to denounce his principal, Dr. Au, was achieved as a result of this threat by the investigator.
Conclusion
I read this novel as a young law student, and I only wish I had paid attention to the litigation lessons it contains. I now encourage others who wish to succeed as Crown counsel to read it carefully and to draw inspiration from the many themes that are explored so ably.
[1] A few of his reported cases include R. v. Heppner, [1975] B.C.J. No. 1039, 28 C.C.C. (2d) 23 (C.A.), R. v. Barnier, [1977] B.C.J. No. 1160, 37 C.C.C. (2d) 508 (C.A.), R. v. Rivera, [1974] B.C.J. No. 879, 22 C.C.C. (2d) 105 (C.A.) and R. v. Handy, [1978] B.C.J. No. 1138, 45 C.C.C. (2d) 232 (C.A.).
[2] A recent book review of Mr. Deverell’s no less entertaining and illuminating courtroom drama, Kill All the Lawyers, appeared on Mack’s Criminal Law site on February 18, 2026. I wrote an earlier book review in respect to the title, Sing a Worried Song, by Mr. Deverell, posted in Mack’s Criminal Law blog – May 27, 2015 ( http://dallas-mack-4x7v.squarespace.com/law-blog/2015/5/27/book-review-sing-a-worried-song.
[3] Refer to my text, Demeanour Evidence on Trial: A Legal and Literary Criticism, Sandstone Academic Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2008, and to articles I have posted such as “Evidence of Demeanour: Some Instruction Found in the Early Works of Georges Simenon, (Winter 1998), 21(4) Prov. Judges J. 5-23. [http://www.trussel.com/maig/demeanour.htm]” and “Demeanour Evidence: Guidance from the Tax Court of Canada, Alan D. Gold Collection of Criminal Law Articles, ADGN/RP-294, May 4, 2020” and “Demeanour Evidence and ‘Eyelid Turns’: Guidance from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and Anthony Trollope”, Alan D. Gold Collection of Criminal Law Articles, ADGN/RP-293, April 27, 2020. See my review of the book “Our Box Was Full”, by R. Daly, The Advocate, Vol. 65(4), July 2007, pages 563-564 touching upon cultural chasms in such matters.
[4] See my earlier review of the novel “The Case of the Deadly Toy”, by Erle Stanley Gardner, featuring the fabled defence lawyer Perry Mason, in Mack’s Criminal Law. It seems that every Sunday TV show, from 5 to 6 in the afternoon, featured a parade of witnesses followed, about ten minutes before the show’s end, by a surprise witness who was often the killer, conveniently sitting in the court!
[5] Of interest, Crown counsel stated, at page 46: “My learned friend has no right to disclosure of evidence not a part of the Crown’s case.”