Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Ep.3: Reasonable Apprehension of Bias in the Face of Horror
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Ep.3: Reasonable Apprehension of Bias in the Face of Horror
In the case of R. Colley we explore the topic of an interventionist judge who pursued resolution in a case were he thought the accused were both "F*cked" and the video the prosecution was a "f*cking disaster" for the defence: R. v. Colley, 2024 ONCA 524 DATE: 20240703 DOCKET: C66693 & C6880.
The case R. v. Colley at the Court of Appeal for Ontario involves appellants Joel Roberto and Ravyn Colley, who were charged with the first-degree murder of their four-year-old son, Jaelin. The original trial found Roberto guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 18 years, while Colley was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years.
View all episodes
In the case of R. Colley we explore the topic of an interventionist judge who pursued resolution in a case were he thought the accused were both "F*cked" and the video the prosecution was a "f*cking disaster" for the defence: R. v. Colley, 2024 ONCA 524 DATE: 20240703 DOCKET: C66693 & C6880.
The case R. v. Colley at the Court of Appeal for Ontario involves appellants Joel Roberto and Ravyn Colley, who were charged with the first-degree murder of their four-year-old son, Jaelin. The original trial found Roberto guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 18 years, while Colley was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years.