William Sandeson claimed self-defence in his first-degree murder trial — that he feared for his own life — when he fatally shot Taylor Samson with his 9-mm Smith & Wesson handgun during a planned drug deal in his Halifax apartment on Aug. 15, 2015.
Jurors have begun deliberating on a verdict in the trial, which lasted five weeks, meaning Global News can now report on what the 12-person jury didn’t hear.
The self-defence argument was never presented to the jury in Sandeson’s first trial in 2017, when he was found guilty of first-degree murder. The conviction was overturned in June 2020 after the Court of Appeal found that a mistrial should have been granted.
Morphsuit men or self-defence
The jury in 2017 heard that Sandeson told police multiple different versions of what happened in his apartment that night, including a story in which two men in morphsuits — a full body, spandex-like material that often covers faces — busted into the kitchen, shot Samson and took his body.
That evidence, as well as the second and third police interviews Sandeson took part in after his arrest, were excluded at the second trial following a seven-day voir dire in April 2022 regarding the admissibility of statements.
Another part of the excluded police statements was when Sandeson gestured to Const. Jody Allison that Samson was shot in the back of the head.
In the second trial, Sandeson acknowledged a lot of blood was coming from Samson’s head and neck area, but testified he didn’t see where Samson was shot.
Police interviews and evolving evidence
According to court documents from that voir dire, Samson was reported to police as a missing person on Aug. 16, 2015.
Sandeson was contacted by police Aug. 18 as he was one of the last contacts in Samson’s phone records.
Sandeson, the document says, was not a suspect when he was interviewed for one hour and 45 minutes on Aug. 18. Sandeson was later arrested for kidnapping, misleading the police (obstruction of justice) and trafficking.
He was then questioned for about four hours that same evening, continuing into the early morning of Aug. 19.
Sandeson was questioned a third time — occurring later Aug. 19 — but about eight of 10 hours into that interview, “Mr. Sandeson provided information to cause police to shortly thereafter re-arrest him for murder,” the document states.
Sandeson told Allison that Samson was shot in his apartment, making it clear to police Samson had been murdered.
Around 9 a.m. Aug. 19, Det. Const. Roger Sayer received a report from an officer at Sandeson’s apartment that blood splatter had been located in several areas and that a bullet hole was found in a windowsill.
There was not enough blood to conclude that someone died, Sayer was told, and it wasn’t clear when the bullet hole was created. This evidence was reported prior to Sandeson’s third police interview.
Sandeson also argued there was police oppression because “at least the third interview was too long,” the ruling states.
“Throughout both interviews Mr. Sandeson says he was cold, tired and had an upset stomach such that he could hardly eat,” the court document reads. “He says that the persistent police questioning amounted to psychological pressure.”
But Justice James Chipman disagreed with that and rejected the argument.
Key points to Chipman’s ruling
In regards to the police statement admissibility, Chipman said Sandeson should have had access to a lawyer when the murder charge was being considered.
During the second interview, which ended after 2 a.m. Aug. 19, Sayer left the interview room and Det. Const. Donald Buell entered. Buell made comments, including, “We both know the reality that Taylor is not coming home, that’s not going to happen, big time.”
“When I consider this comment in the context of all of the evidence of what was then known from the texts and the search, I have no hesitation in concluding that Mr. Sandeson should have been arrested and Charter cautioned for what he was suspected of, murder, at the beginning of this (second) interview,” Chipman writes.
“In all of the circumstances I am of the view that early on in the second interview the police officer asked questions that went beyond an exploratory stage in connection with a related but significantly more serious offence. Police should then have reiterated Mr. Sandeson’s right to counsel.
“This was not done at anytime throughout the second interview and only in the waning stages of the third interview.”
The jury began deliberations Thursday afternoon. If they don’t reach a verdict by the end of the day, they will be sequestered and continue deliberations Friday.