Watch above: Three men accused in the shooting death of Isho Hana were back before a judge on Monday. Wendy Winiewski tells us the back and forth continues over what should be and shouldn’t be admissible.
SASKATOON – Closing arguments in a voir dire portion of a Saskatoon murder trial are expected to continue Tuesday at Queen’s Bench Court. On trial are Kennith Tingle, Jonathon Dombowsky and Long Nam Luu, charged with the first-degree murder of Isho Hana, who was gunned down on Preston Avenue in 2004.
Judge Richard Danyluik is set to determine whether statements made about the trio by Neil Yakimchuk to an undercover officer should be admissible in the trial proper. In 2014, a jury found Yakimchuk guilty of murdering Hana after he unknowingly admitted his involvement and the involvement of the three currently on trial to an undercover officer in a “Mr. Big” sting operation.
Last summer, a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada changed the way statements from Mr. Big sting operations are used in trials. Nelson Hart was found wrongfully convicted of drowning his daughters after the supreme court ruled his verbal confession to an undercover officer was inadmissible.
READ MORE: Lead investigator connects the dots in 2004 Saskatoon murder
In Saskatoon, Danyluik has to determine how that ruling should be applied to the trial of Tingle, Dombowsky and Luu.
“It seems as though we’re on new ground here.”
Morris Bodnar, the defense lawyer for Luu, feels Yakimchuk’s statements are riddled with inconsistencies.
“It’s very difficult to defend a case when the Crown is relying on hearsay, double here-say, almost rumors in a community,” said Bodnar.
“It’s very difficult. How do you counter that.”
The Crown counters that the statements are reliable because Yakimchuk would have had no reason to lie to an undercover officer who he thought was his friend.
Danyluik reiterated several times, Monday’s voir dire closing arguments are to determine whether the statements by Yakimchuk, incriminating the three on trial, would be admissible as evidence and nothing more.
Comments