The judge presiding over the Greg Fertuck murder trial has stated that an unproven allegation of prosecutorial misconduct was “ill-conceived and ill-executed.”
Defence lawyer Mike Nolin made the challenge Wednesday morning in Saskatoon’s Court of Queen Bench. He later withdrew the allegation after cautioning from the judge.
Nolin said he overheard Crown prosecutor Cory Bliss and a witness “discussing matters” following a Tuesday afternoon adjournment.
“I was five feet in front of them. I overheard conversation. I didn’t hear exactly what was said, but Mr. Bliss ought not to be talking to this witness at all,” Nolin said.
The witness was the undercover officer who posed as a fake crime boss during the nearly year-long Mr. Big sting of Fertuck, who is now 68 years old.
Justice Richard Danyliuk has ordered every witness not to speak about the case with anyone until their testimony is complete. They can, however, speak about issues unrelated to the case. The fake crime boss was still under oath at the end of Tuesday’s proceedings.
When Bliss finished re-examination of the witness Wednesday, Nolin asked the undercover officer: “did you and the prosecutor discuss your testimony yesterday afternoon?”
“No my lord,” the witness answered before Danyliuk could interject.
Nolin said he found it “fairly convenient” that the witness had a response ready for a question Bliss asked during re-examination. He alleged it was an act of “prosecutorial misconduct.”
Carla Dewar, the other prosecutor on the case, called Nolin’s comments “extremely objectionable.”
Following a brief adjournment, Danyliuk returned to the courtroom, stating he was unhappy with Nolin asking a surrebuttal question without the judge’s permission. The witness was called by Nolin’s co-counsel, Morris Bodnar, and Bodnar should have been the one to speak.
“This is not a tag team match at stampede wrestling where counsel get to stand up and say whatever they wish whenever they wish,” Danyliuk said.
“Unfortunately, the witness answered swiftly and definitively before I could intervene.”
Danyliuk cautioned the defence that it would need to present evidence of any misconduct. If Nolin decided to proceed with the claim, he would have to step down as Fertuck’s lawyer and be sworn in as a witness.
Bodnar would need to continue as the lone defence lawyer, or find someone to assist him mid-trial.
“Speak with your heads up before I run you into the boards,” Danyliuk warned in an apparent hockey reference.
Nolin apologized and withdrew his challenge.
“It was an ill-conceived and ill-executed challenge of the personal and professional integrity (of Bliss),” Danyliuk said.
Danyliuk told the prosecutor he had no concerns and considered it a “dead issue,” before allowing the trial to continue.
Greg Fertuck has pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder and offering an indignity to a body related to the Dec. 7, 2015 disappearance of his estranged wife Sheree Fertuck.
On June 21, 2019, the accused told the head of an RCMP-crafted, fake criminal organization that he shot and killed Sheree.
Wednesday’s testimony
Court heard testimony from the organization’s “cleanup guy” Wednesday — the latest in a long list of undercover police officers to take the stand.
During his interactions with Greg Fertuck, the officer said the accused would refer to himself as a “bad boy,” “bad rascal” and a “dark cowboy.”
Prior to his admission to the fake crime boss, Greg Fertuck also told the undercover officer that he had “killed before,” according to the witness. The officer told the man to keep that to himself.
Court viewed undercover video taken immediately after Greg Fertuck’s meeting with the crime boss. As he and other undercover officers prepared to drive to a Kenaston, Sask., area gravel pit, Greg Fertuck can be heard asking to take a different vehicle to avoid suspicion.
Earlier during the trial, the Crown played a video of Greg Fertuck saying he shot Sheree twice at the gravel pit before driving to a nearby set of poplar bluffs to dispose of her body.
All of the Crown’s evidence has been entered in a voir dire. The hearing is essentially a trial within a trial to determine what is admissible.
Danyliuk has not ruled on whether any of the evidence to date is admissible.