Rene Sweeney's family warned by judge after 'inappropriate' attempt to 'sway' Sudbury jury

On March 6, the jury in the ReneSweeney murder trial didn't take their seats in the Sudbury courtroom until the end of the day.

Justice Robbie Gordon told them that he and the lawyers had been dealing with an "improper attempt" to communicate with jurors, but that it wasn't something they needed to worry about.

Because those discussions happened without the jury in the courtroom, they were covered by a publication ban. But now that the jury is in deliberations, that ban has been lifted.

That day the court heard it was the Sweeney family, specificallyRene's sister Kim, whoearly thatmorning parked a truck in front of the door where jurors come into the Sudbury courthouse.

In the back windowwas a custom-made decal reading "Guilty AF."

Defence lawyer Michael Lacy clarified itstands for "guilty as f--k" and called itan "obvious"and "purposeful" attempt to influence the jury.

"This is not some secret message," he told the court.

"This is no different from handing each and every one of them an envelope that says "you need to convict Steven Wright."

Lacy acknowledged thatthis is a"very difficult case in terms of what's at stake, I understand that for the family. I understand there's a lot of emotion in this case."

"You can only imagine if my client's family had parked a vehicle that said 'absolutely innocent'... police would have been called," he told the court

Lacy argued that"if the appearance of fairness has been compromised" by this attempt to influence thejurors, "then the only remedy is going to be a mistrial" which would unfortunately mean an "even longer wait until we have a just verdict in this case."

Justice Gordon ordered the security camera footage be brought to the courtroomthat afternoon.

With a few dozen journalists and spectators watching, and holding his hand over his mouth, the judgereviewed some 30 minutes of people coming and going to the courthouse past the parked truck, including four jurors.

Gordonthen cleared the courtroom so he, along with the defence and Crown lawyers,couldquestionthe jurors about what they had seen.

"It's easy to get caught up in what took place, as improper as it is," Gordon told the court when it resumedlate that afternoon.

"It's inappropriate for anyone to be trying to sway the jury. It won't be tolerated. It's not how we conduct justice in this country."

But Gordon ruled there was "not much" of animpact from the "Guilty AF" sign, saying that three jurors didn't take much note of it at all and the one who did, dismissedit as an"irresponsible posting."

This was one of severaltimes when the defence raised the spectre of a mistrial.

The last time came on Tuesday, just before the judge gave his instructions to the jury.

Lacy calledthe Crown's closing argument "inexcusable" andtold Justice Gordon that "absent the strongest caution" to the jury"there is no way for a fair trail."

He made a half-dozen objections, including that the Crown's theory that Sweeney was still alive after Wright fled the video storewas a "medical impossibility" and the Crown's invitation for the jurors to look for similarities inthe footprints found in the store and those found in the snow, contrary to the evidence given by the police expert.

Lacyalso thought the Crown's claim that there is no evidence connecting John Fetterly to the murder was contrary to the judge's previous ruling that there was an "air of reality" to Fetterlybeing a possible suspect.

Crown prosecutor Robert Parsons said he disagreed with Lacy's objections and noted some issues withLacy's closing argument.

Lacy told the jury thatthe Crown didn't call Fetterly as a witness, but Parsons called that "entirely inaccurate" considering thatFetterlywas onthedefence witness list and was broughttoSudbury after being subpoenaed, but was never called to testify.

To address those concerns from the defence, Gordon ultimately decided to "extend" some sections of his instructions to the jury.

Something similar happenedon the first day of the trial, Feb. 23, following the opening statements from assistant Crown attorney Kevin Ludgate.

Defence lawyer Michael Lacy said by suggesting "everyone has a first time" for violence he was using "improper hyperbole" and "improper argument" for an opening statement.

Lacy made it clear he was not asking for a mistrial, but wondered if the judge could clarify that for the jury, although he worried thatwould run the risk of "highlighting the problem."

After defence lawyer Bryan Badaligave his opening statement, Ludgate similarly raised concerns with the judge whenthe jury was out of the courtroom, taking exception with the defence's focus on a lack of motive, since that's not something the Crown is legally required to prove.

Gordon clarified both opening statements for the jury once they were back in their seats.

The lawyers on both sides several times made suggestions onthe instructions the judge gave to the jury, sometimes getting down to specific word choices.

On March 21, the Crown took issue with the judge noting Wright's decision to testify in his own evidence, fearing that was"enhancing his credibility."

The Crown did want the judge to note Wright took a less busy route when walking downtown to catch a bus after fleeing from the video store, but Lacy objected, saying"that doesn't make it more likely that he's guilty."

That editing of the judge's instructions continued on Tuesday, even after he had already officially charged the jury and sent them to begin deliberations.

Lacy pointed out several issues and Gordon decided to call the jury back into the courtroom, to make it clear to them that the burden is on the Crown to prove how Wright's DNA got under Sweeney's fingernails, as well telling the jurors they can take a range of different views on the footprint evidence, after originally telling them there were only three options.

Several times during the trial, the judge and lawyers discussed concerns about the testimony being heard by the jury, including worries by the defence that a DNA expert was "biased" towardthe Crown's case and a police investigator giving an opinion on something he was not deemed to be an expert in.

The jurors themselves were a popular topic of discussion between the judge and lawyers, including their concerns about how much they're paid for their service, their health and worries about their ability to be impartial.

The 14 jurors were selected on Feb. 21, but two days later, with opening arguments just minutes away, one juror said he had recently discovered thatone of hisco-workers had knownRene Sweeney and he was dismissed.

Another juror was selected, but then the following day he let the court know that he had just learned that his wife is friends with a member of the Sweeney family.

The defence suggested thatjuror also be dismissed, which Justice Gordon agreed to,but heworried about going down to 13 jurorsearly in the trial, considering they need a minimum of 10 to deliver a verdict.

This would become a key decision in the coming weeks when several jurors tested positive for COVID-19 and the trial was delayed for more than a week, during which the judge and lawyers wondered if it was possible to proceed with some jurors tuning in on Zoom.