After the trial and acquittal of Jian Ghomeshi much has been written and spoken regarding his lawyer Marie Henein and her work with another famous client, former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant. In both cases the media attributed Henein’s success to her ability to find exculpatory evidence supporting her clients. The question that has not been addressed is why did Ghomeshi’s case go to trial but not Bryant’s? Why did Henein reveal her entire defence to the Crown in Bryant’s case, in order to avoid a trial but not in Ghomeshi’s case?
The simple answer would be that Henein felt the evidence, against Jian Ghomeshi (including the exculpatory evidence she had uncovered) was stronger than the evidence against Michael Bryant. The Crown in Ghomeshi’s case went to trial because they believed they had a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown in Bryant’s case, represented by special prosecutor Richard Peck and his Ontario agent Mark Sandler determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Both defendants had the same lawyer, so let’s compare the strength of the evidence in each case.