A courthouse in Cayuga, Ont. heard two different versions of what a woman’s role was in an Ontario Provincial Police officer’s death.
Brandi Stewart-Sperry is facing a first-degree murder charge in the death of Const. Greg Pierzchala. Her co-accused, Randall McKenzie, faces the same charge.
On Tuesday, the court heard closing submissions from the Crown and McKenzie’s lawyer.
On Wednesday, Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer had his say.
Crown Prosecutor Fraser McCracken urged jurors to find Stewart-Sperry guilty as charged and called her McKenzie’s “partner in crime.”
He claimed Stewart-Sperry distracted Pierzchala so the shooter could ambush the officer.
The jury has seen footage from Pierzchala’s body-worn camera, showing the officer speaking with Stewart-Sperry. The woman briefly raises a blanket over her face before she begins to answer one of the officer’s questions.
That’s when the shooter fires a gun multiple times.
Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer, Scott Reid, argues there isn’t evidence to prove Stewart-Sperry was speaking to the shooter behind the blanket, or, if she did, what was said.
Reid argued the shooter stepped behind Stewart-Sperry as he reached for his gun.
“He’s using her as an unwitting shield,” Reid said.
“He’s using her to block the officer’s view,” he added.
He also said there is no evidence that Stewart-Sperry knew that the shooter had a gun.
Previously, the jury saw text messages McKenzie sent to two people. In the texts, he talks about plans to shoot out with cops. However, neither of the recipients were Stewart-Sperry.
Reid also pointed to testimony from several civilian witnesses who had stopped at the scene of the car in the ditch. They said Stewart-Sperry appeared to be impaired by drugs and did not seem to be thinking coherently.
Toxicology tests revealed various drugs were in her blood, including three separate central nervous system depressants that can cause side effects like sedation, confusion and decreased awareness.
The Crown has said Stewart-Sperry’s actions after the shooting are evidence of her guilt. She left the site of the shooting with the shooter in a stolen truck and tried to cover the licence plates with blankets.
Stewart-Sperry was also in a wooded area with McKenzie until just a few moments before her arrest.
Reid argued the jury shouldn’t assume how someone would behave in that situation.
“Stupid decision, [a] mistake to be sure, but in a panicked state and high on drugs, perhaps an understandable one,” he explained.
He also noted McKenzie had a loaded gun on him.
“What would you do? Probably exactly what she did. Help him get away.”
Reid asked the jury to find Stewart-Sperry not guilty.
“Like all of us, Brandi is flawed. She may have many flaws. But being a killer is not one of them,” he said.
Reid also reminded jurors the standard to convict is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’
“There is overwhelming doubt,” he suggested.
After the final closing arguments were made, Justice Andrew Goodman began to give his instructions to the jury, outlining the law and what they can and cannot consider when they start deliberating.
The jury is expected to start deliberating around lunch on Thursday after Goodman finishes his charge.
They will be sequestered until they reach a unanimous verdict for both McKenzie and Stewart-Sperry.
