The case of Daniel Topey is complex and has so far escaped much reporting, especially in English. The incident in question took place on the 27th of April, 2007. The incident being an armed pursuit of Topey by the Montreal police in the neighborhood of Notre-Dame de Grace. Several weeks before, the police received testimony from an unnamed informant (the circumstances under which they received this testimony are unclear), apparently indicating that Topey dreamed of killing a police officer and that he was dangerous. On the afternoon of April 27 the Montreal police force decided to send a three officer Groupe d’intervention tactique (or what would be known in popular culture as a SWAT team) to his home in the Notre-Dame de Grace neighborhood of Montreal, where he lived with his mother, to apprehend him. The police have claimed that since they didn’t want to cause undue stress for his mother, they decided that the apprehension should take place outside. Thus as Topey was exiting a nearby McDonalds they moved in. Upon seeing them, Topey ran down an alley, at which point the police began shooting at him with both rubber bullets - several of which hit Topey. Then the officers claim that Topey shot at them, to which they responded with conventional munitions (Topey maintains he had no gun). After knocking Topey down, the police realized that they had shot him in the back of the head. He went to the hospital where he remained in an induced coma for ten days.
When he woke up he discovered that he was being charged with the attempted murder of a police officer. The defense aspect of his trial took place these last three days (April 15, 16 & 17) though it has now been extended to also include the 15th & 16th of June.
There are a number of things that seem strange about this case. Firstly, why was a Groupe d’intervention tactique dispatched? Could a less severe method have been implemented to apprehend him? Secondly it seems correct to question if it is a legitimate to arrest someone simply because someone else claimed that he or she had dreams of doing something illegal. The simple answer seems to be no, it is not legitimate. So to recap, based on scant evidence which merely alleged that Topey had dreamed of doing something, the police dispatched three men with body armor and machine guns to arrest him and who in turn nearly killed him. This rationale does not hold water for me, though at this point we are not privy to other explanations for their motives.
The police claim that the Groupe d’intervention tactique was necessary because they believed Topey dangerous. But once again this rests solely on the testimony of their informant. Topey had no prior convictions nor was there any other reason for the police to believe him a violent person.
Then there’s the charge of attempted murder. Despite the severity of this case, it has come to light that the police did not bother to make a report until some weeks after the incident, seemingly after they realized that Topey was not going to die. This is problematic for a host of reasons, perhaps the most simple being the fallibility of memory.
As for the alleged murder attempt: the police say that Topey shot at them. Topey maintains that he had no gun. In his testimony in court he explained that he was only carrying the things he had purchased from McDonalds. Furthermore out of the three officers involved (Nicolas Brazeau, Christian Gilbert and team leader Bruno Beaudin) only Brazeau, who shot Topey, claims to have seen him pull out a gun and fire. Beaudin said that he happened to be looking away at the precise moment and Gilbert stated that Topey was around a corner from him. The next thing these two officers were aware of, Topey was lying face down on the ground.
It seems that the officers spent some time trying to determine if he was really immobilized or only pretending, while they continued firing rubber bullets over him, until they noticed that he had a gunshot wound in the back of his head. They then called paramedics and Gilbert placed his finger in the bullet hole to stem the bleeding. A gun, they claimed, was found several feet from Topey, lying on some grass. Their report states that his DNA was on the weapon’s clip but not on the weapon itself.
From what the officers said, this exchange of fire must have taken place in a very short period of time – short enough that it occurred during the brief moment that Beaudin was looking somewhere else (which I assume would have to be very brief indeed considering that this was a highly trained officer chasing and shooting at a man that they all ostensibly considered ‘dangerous’). So if it was all happening in this instant – Topey pulling a gun, shooting at Brazeau, Brazeau returning fire and then Topey falling down, I Feel that a reasonable question to ask would be: how did the bullet wound come to be in the back of Topey’s head? In an instant did he stop, turn fire, then turn again just in time to get a bullet in the back, rather then the front of his head? Did the officer who was pursuing him with a machine gun, casually wait for him to stop, turn around and fire at him before pulling his own trigger? Could all of this have happened in the necessary instant?
…
Topey’s Trial began last September with the prosecution. This current three day period was to be for the defense. I arrived at the Palais de Justice on the afternoon of Thursday, April 16. The Palais de Justice is a large, imposing building and I got lost for a little while trying to navigate its mammoth interior towards the windowless courtroom where the trial was taking place. There were some reporters camped outside a nearby courtroom – people speculated that they were there either for the trial of ex-hockey player Guy Lafleur or the Hells Angels – two high-profile cases that were going on.
Daniel had testified in the morning and I had missed it, but talking to others I heard his version of the story.
He said that he had just come out of the McDonalds when he saw the door of an unmarked van open to reveal people clad in body armor and wielding machine guns. The prosecution has made something of the fact that he ran. There is always the implication in situations like this that only people with something to hide run from authority figures with guns. But of course, running from men with guns is not an incrimination of any kind. The police say that they yelled “police.” Topey stated that he only heard them yell “freeze” and that he did not know who they were until he was on the ground. He explained that he had seen people with guns coming out of a van and then ran without thinking. He was adamant that he had no gun and that he was only carrying his food.
At around three in the afternoon everyone reentered the courtroom. It was smaller than I expected. I had also expected there to be a jury, but the defense had elected for a trial by judge, so the extra space was unnecessary. In there, of course, all the legal protocol had to be observed. The special constable in the back of the room insists that everyone rise and stay in their place when the judge is walking. The council must refer to the Judge as “My Lord” and to the other council as “My learned colleague” and wear barrister’s robes. It’s something which I find both humorous and intimidating at the same time. It is sort of absurd, but there is much power behind that absurdity.
The afternoon was supposed to be for the prosecution to cross-examine, but the crown prosecutor, Anne-Marie Otis decided to forgo any cross examination – a decision that most found perplexing. The defense attorney, Lloyd Fischler then requested to recall a witness – a ballistics expert, for the next morning. Ms. Otis made a snide joke about recalling all the witnesses. Her demeanor seemed to be one of irritation and contempt, with her making a number of bored or exasperated gestures – eye rolling, hair twirling and so forth. Speaking to others, this behavior seems to have been present throughout the entire trial. It seemed very theatrical, meant to generate negative feelings about Topey and his defense.
The prosecution, I was told, has depended largely on attacking Topey’s character, on trying to
make him seem like the sort of person who would try to kill a police officer.
He is a Hip-Hop artist and much has been made of this and of certain rap lyrics that were found in his apartment.
I talked to Topey’s friend Yoseph Yisrael outside the courtroom. He explained to me that the Prosecution had focused on one particular line in a rap that read: Empty the Glock no need for redemption. Glock, of course is a German firearm manufacturer. Writing songs, however, is not a crime. If Daniel had written those lines, then the only thing they would have proved was that he was an artist who liked to write songs, but Yisrael informed me that he did not even write them, that they belonged to another Hip-Hop artist who went by the name Destro. They just happened to be in Topey’s notebook, which I was told, is a common occurrence amongst Hip-Hop artists.
I have long been uneasy with the way prosecution seems to operate in criminal trials. It has always seemed to me that the prosecution should be more impartial. The emphasis as it stands is placed entirely on winning. Whatever is permissible towards this end will be pursued. Given the potentially severe consequences in these cases it seems that the role of the prosecutor should be to compile evidence and facts in the most dispassionate and academic fashion possible. As Topey’s mother said to me “there should really only be one side: the truth.” It is unnerving that such an impersonal relationship as that between prosecutor and defendant should result in such an apparently personal attack on the defendant’s being.
At the same time, I couldn’t understand why the prosecutor would have such a large investment in winning – why he or she would be so much more preoccupied with winning than getting to the bottom of the truth. This may point to my naivete around legal proceedings, but it still seems like a fair question. I asked around about this. A friend told me that someone had told her that prosecutors received bonuses based on the number of cases they won. However, I asked Topey’s lawyer Lloyd Fischler about it and he said that it was not true (though as an interesting aside, he did say that police officers’ promotions and wage increases are based on how many arrests they make). That seemed to rule out a financial explanation, so I was still at something of a loss to explain the human motivations for this behavior. Perhaps it is something more basic.
The next morning the proceedings were scheduled to begin at 9:30 but there were some delays. Firstly there was a bit of an argument between the attorneys since the prosecutor was upset about Fischler recalling what she considered to be her witness – the ballistics expert. Secondly, as Topey has been portrayed as a dangerous person with the intention to kill police officers, he was denied bail and thus has been kept in a detention center in RDP for the last two years and his transporters are often late in bringing him to the courthouse.
When things finally did get underway, we were informed that the ballistics expert lacked the expertise to speak on the particular issue that was at stake – that a new expert was needed. A recess was called so that the two lawyers and the judge could check their schedules to find dates when they would all be available. When they reconvened we were told that the trial would recommence in the middle of June. After learning this news Daniel Topey’s face took on an expression that could only be interpreted as despair.
Palais de Justice
Palais de Justice
Palais de Justice