Defence urges jury to reject key witness testimony in downtown nightclub shooting trial

The closing arguments have been heard in the ongoing trial for a nightclub shooting in 2023.

Defence lawyers for two men accused in a downtown Windsor nightclub shooting told jurors Thursday the Crown has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — pointing to what they described as unreliable eyewitness testimony.

The trial stems from a May 13, 2023 altercation outside a nightclub on Ouellette Avenue, where prosecutors allege Detroit man Raphell Holland was shot in the foot after attempting to break up a fight outside the club.

Ezechiel Thompson, 23, has pleaded not guilty to charges including discharging a firearm with intent and assault causing bodily harm.

Silbert Caron, 26, has pleaded not guilty to charges including aiding or abetting the discharge of a firearm, occupying a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm inside, and carrying a concealed weapon.

In closing submissions, defence lawyer Alexandra Cardella told jurors they should have “no difficulty” finding Caron not guilty based on the evidence presented in court.

Cardella argued several civilian witnesses were “unreliable and not necessarily credible,” saying some offered differing versions of events that she said were incompatible with surveillance video shown at trial.

She told the jury that one witness had been intoxicated on the night of the incident, while another later agreed to testify against his former co-accused after resolving his own criminal matter — characterizing that witness’s evidence as “self-serving” and arguing his account had changed over time.

Cardella also told jurors that witness testimony evolved in the years following the incident, including what she said were later references to hearing a gunshot or seeing a green laser that were not mentioned in initial police interviews.

On a charge alleging Caron knowingly occupied a vehicle containing a firearm, Cardella told jurors there was no evidence he saw or possessed a gun that night — adding police did not locate either his identification or a firearm inside a limousine connected to the case.

She further argued that even if jurors believe Caron was involved in the initial altercation with Holland, that would not establish knowledge of or involvement with a firearm.

Defence lawyer Patricia Brown, representing Thompson, similarly urged the jury to find the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that her client was the person who shot Holland.

Brown questioned whether one key witness could have accurately identified the shooter, telling jurors the individual testified he was positioned behind a limousine at the time of the incident.

She also pointed to what she described as “weak” eyewitness identification evidence — noting “no civilian witnesses” identified Thompson as the person wearing a distinctive necklace seen in surveillance video of the alleged shooter.

Brown told jurors that same witness entered the courtroom after what she described as an agreement with the Crown Attorney — urging the jury to reject his testimony entirely due to inconsistencies between his police interview and his evidence at trial.

She further argued no items recovered from inside the limousine were tested for gunshot residue.

Brown reminded jurors that a guilty verdict requires certainty — not suspicion or the belief that an accused person “looks like” the individual responsible.

The judge is expected to formally charge the jury Friday morning before deliberations begin.