• City Hall
  • Province House
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Investigation
  • Journalism
  • Commentary
  • @Tim_Bousquet
  • Log In

Halifax Examiner

An independent, adversarial news site in Halifax, NS

  • Home
  • About
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Commenting policy
  • Archives
  • Contact us
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
  • Manage your account
  • Swag
You are here: Home / Commentary / The Randy Riley trial: how news media are falling down on the job

The Randy Riley trial: how news media are falling down on the job

Dropping coverage of a court trial mid-trial is a disservice both for readers and for justice.

April 9, 2018 By Tim Bousquet 2 Comments

Photo: Halifax Examiner

Last Tuesday, there was dramatic moment in Supreme Court, worthy of its own Law & Order episode.

In the course of its prosecution of Randy Riley for the 2010 murder of Chad Smith, the crown called its witness Nathan Johnson. Johnson took the stand and — bam! — said that he, and he alone, killed Chad Smith. Randy Riley had nothing to do with it, said Johnson.

That testimony threw the crown’s case into disarray.

Johnson’s courtroom confession happened last Tuesday, so why are you only reading about it on the following Monday? Because there was no reporter in the courtroom when it happened.

And this is a major problem. It’s a problem for news reporting, it’s a problem for an informed citizenry, and it’s a problem for justice.

Court coverage is inadequate

To be clear: I wasn’t there either, and the Halifax Examiner didn’t send a reporter. We’re a small operation, and we don’t have the resources to regularly cover court trials.

And larger media organizations are also stretched thin. There are just two Halifax reporters devoted exclusively to court coverage: the CBC’s Blair Rhodes and Steve Bruce at the Chronicle Herald. The pair do good work, but they cannot possibly cover everything going on, and especially when there are multiple cases going on at the same time.

There are other reporters who show up at the courthouse for big cases. Notably, Natasha Pace at Global News has been covering high-profile murder cases since at least the Garnier trial. Aly Thomson at the Canadian Press and Zane Woodford at Metro also show up at the courthouse on occasion. I’m sure I’m overlooking some other reporters, but their presence is rare.

Both Blair Rhodes and Natasha Pace were at at the opening of the Riley trial, and covered the first week of the crown’s case, until Thursday, March 29. After the long Easter weekend, both Rhodes and Pace showed up back at the courthouse on Tuesday, April 2, but instead of carrying on with the Riley trial, they moved two courtrooms over to start covering the Nicholas Butcher trial:

That concludes the evidence for today in Randy Desmond Riley's first-degree murder trial. Testimony in the case is now scheduled to resume on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. at #NovaScotia Supreme Court in #Halifax

— Natasha Pace (@NatashaPace) March 29, 2018

The second-degree murder trial for Nicholas Butcher is scheduled to start this morning at #NovaScotia Supreme Court in #Halifax pic.twitter.com/WY8Y9pj9Sb

— Natasha Pace (@NatashaPace) April 3, 2018

Crown finishes questioning medical examiner. Defence has no questions so she is done and so is the case for the week. #nscourt

— Blair Rhodes (@CBCBlairRhodes) March 29, 2018

At Nova Scotia Supreme Court for 2nd degree murder trial of Nicholas Butcher, charged in the March 2016 death of his girlfriend, Kristin Johnston. 2 courtrooms packed with prospective jurors. #nscourt pic.twitter.com/c3ZDJUh0Jx

— Blair Rhodes (@CBCBlairRhodes) April 3, 2018

I’m not blaming the reporters for abandoning the Riley trial mid-trial and jumping over to the Butcher trial. This was a decision made in collaboration with their editors, and the editors ultimately made the call.

Kristin Johnston. Photo: Facebook

Why was the Butcher trial considered more important? I can’t say with certainty, but I’ll offer up a guess: the victim in the Butcher case, yoga instructor Kristin Johnson, is judged of more popular appeal than the victim in the Riley case, pizza deliverer Chad Smith.

The underlying cause of the switch in coverage, of course, is simply that newsrooms don’t have enough reporters to adequately cover all the murder trials.

But for whatever reason, dropping coverage of a court trial mid-trial is a disservice for both readers and for justice.

Last week, I talked with a friend who worked for the CBC. The friend told me that the long-time cardinal rule at the ceeb for court coverage was “if you start covering a trial, you follow through to the verdict.” Obviously, this didn’t happen in the Riley trial.

Chad Smith

Why does it matter?

Because abandoning the case mid-trial, when only part of the crown’s evidence had been presented, leaves readers and viewers with a skewed understanding of the case, and therefore of Riley’s probable guilt.

There is no physical evidence directly connecting Riley to the murder — no forensic evidence, no DNA, no fingerprints. In fact, all the physical evidence, and especially fingerprints on the murder weapon, point back to Johnson, not Riley.

But the crown relied on the testimony of Riley’s “childhood friend” Paul Smith; here’s how Pace reported the testimony:

He said Riley called him on the night of October 23, 2010 and asked to be picked up. Smith said he met Riley and another man at a residence in Dartmouth and took them to an apartment building, where he testified that Riley got out of the vehicle and went inside.

A short time later, Smith said he saw Riley walking towards the vehicle with a bulge in his pants and a limp. He also said Riley was wearing gloves. Smith told the jury that Riley told him he had to take care of a guy but didn’t elaborate on what that meant.

We haven’t yet heard the defence’s theory of Paul Smith’s testimony.

There were other witnesses called that first week — police officers and the medical examiner among them. But also evidence was laid out for jurors, and for reporters, who were allowed to photograph the murder weapon and were given clean recordings of a 911 call.

I support giving reporters access to evidence. It remains a big frustration of mine that the evidence in the Glen Assoun case has essentially disappeared; had that evidence been made available to reporters at the time, we could now better understand Assoun’s probable wrongful conviction.

Credit for opening up evidence to reporters should go to the court system’s media officer, former Herald reporter Jennifer Stairs, who initiated the change.

But while giving reporters access to evidence can lead to better reporting of court cases, it can also lead to worse reporting, if the case isn’t followed through to its end. That’s because the reporting only presents the crown’s theory of the case.

I don’t know how the Riley case will end. Maybe the jury will find him guilty and this entire discussion is for naught. But what if because of Johnson’s dramatic courtroom confession and because of testimony offered up by the defence’s witnesses — that is, because of things the jury heard and learned but that weren’t reported on — Riley is ultimately found not guilty? Very likely, because they weren’t provided the full story, the public will be left with the impression that Riley is “actually” guilty, but somehow got off on a technicality that was never adequately explained to them.

In this scenario, how would a not-guilty verdict affect Riley through the rest of his life? It would be difficult enough to get a job, find a spouse, and have a normal life, even in the best of circumstances; but when every potential employer, girlfriend, and neighbour googles Riley’s name and finds only the prosecution’s side of a court case that somehow resulted in Riley “getting off,” it’s going to be that much more difficult.

More on the case

After Johnson’s testimony on Tuesday, a three-day voire dire followed. I was in court for the voire dire on Thursday and Friday but missed Wednesday’s session. So while I know what the voir dire is about, there’s a publication ban on it so I can’t now report on it.

The jury was brought in today, and before Johnson was put back on the stand, Justice Chipman addressed the jury, telling them (apparently for the first time) that Johnson had previously been convicted of the first degree murder of Chad Smith, the same murder Riley is now being charged for.

Johnson had been tried and convicted of the murder, and then lost on appeal. He’s been sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

On the stand, Johnson was asked why he waited so long to come forward to say that Riley had nothing to do with the murder. In response, Johnson said he was simply indifferent to Riley’s fate, but gave last week’s testimony only because he was compelled to be in court; otherwise, “I couldn’t care less,” he said.

We’ll see how the crown deals with that testimony, and whether the jury finds it credible.

And now I find myself in the awkward position of coming into a trial mid-trial, and like the other media outlets, I don’t have the resources to cover the whole thing. I’ll have to miss tomorrow afternoon’s session, for instance.

There just aren’t enough reporters.

One last note. Last Saturday, El Jones wrote that when they were reporting on the Riley trial, both Pace and Rhodes reported that Riley was “staring” at withness Paul Smith. I hesitate to get into a pissing match about the word “staring,” but I’ve observed Riley for three days now. He is what I would call an “attentive” defendant — he sits tall in his chair, slightly leans back, and looks with interest at all the proceedings. When a witness testifies, Riley looks directly at the witness. When the judge speaks, Riley looks directly at the judge. When one or the other of the lawyers speak, Riley looks directly at the lawyer. My read on it is Riley is invested in his fate, and so is involved in his case. That’s no reflection of guilt or innocence, just simply being present. Maybe if Rhodes and Pace had continued in the courtroom they would have come to the same conclusion. I can’t say.

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured, Journalism Tagged With: Aly Thomson, Blair Rhodes, court coverage is inadequate, El Jones, Jennifer Stairs, Justice Chipman, Natasha Pace, Nathan Johnson confesses, Nicholas Butcher trial, Paul Smith, Randy Riley trial, Steve Bruce, Zane Woodford

About Tim Bousquet

Tim Bousquet is the editor and publisher of the Halifax Examiner. email: [email protected]; Twitter

Comments

  1. Colin May says

    April 9, 2018 at 4:57 pm

    An accused looking intently at a person giving evidence…. must be a first.

    Log in to Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Morning Thread - Florida News says:
    April 11, 2018 at 9:46 am

    […] Bousquet didn’t get called to jury duty, but went to court anyway. His live blogging of a murder trial with a real Law & Order moment of changed testimony is […]

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Tideline, with Tara Thorne

Brian Borcherdt. Photo: Anna Edwards-Borcherdt

Brian Borcherdt came of age in Yarmouth in the 1990s. When he arrived in Halifax, the city’s famous music scene was already waning, and worse, the music he made was rejected by the cool kids anyway. After decades away from Nova Scotia, he and his young family have settled in the Annapolis Valley, where he’ll zoom in to chat with Tara about his band Holy Fuck’s endlessly delayed tour, creating the Dependent Music collective, and the freedom and excitement of the improvised music he’s making now. Plus: Bringing events back in 2021.

The Tideline is advertising-free and subscriber-supported. It’s also a very good deal at just $5 a month. Click here to support The Tideline.

Uncover: Dead Wrong

In 1995, Brenda Way was brutally murdered behind a Dartmouth apartment building. In 1999, Glen Assoun was found guilty of the murder. He served 17 years in prison, but steadfastly maintained his innocence. In 2019, Glen Assoun was fully exonerated.

Halifax Examiner founder and investigative journalist Tim Bousquet has followed the story of Glen Assoun's wrongful conviction for over five years. Now, Bousquet tells that story as host of Season 7 of the CBC podcast series Uncover: Dead Wrong.

Click here to go to listen to the podcast, or search for CBC Uncover on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast aggregator.

About the Halifax Examiner

Examiner folk The Halifax Examiner was founded by investigative reporter Tim Bousquet, and now includes a growing collection of writers, contributors, and staff. Left to right: Joan Baxter, Stephen Kimber, Linda Pannozzo, Erica Butler, Jennifer Henderson, Iris the Amazing, Tim Bousquet, Evelyn C. White, El Jones, Philip Moscovitch More about the Examiner.

Sign up for email notification

Sign up to receive email notification of new posts on the Halifax Examiner. Note: signing up for email notification of new posts is NOT subscribing to the Halifax Examiner. To subscribe, click here.

Recent posts

  • I wanted to help Public Health assuage people’s concerns about the pace of the vaccine rollout, but they declined to speak with me January 15, 2021
  • Halifax council candidates blithely broke the new campaign contribution rules, and the municipality didn’t do anything about it January 14, 2021
  • 6 new cases of COVID-19 are announced in Nova Scotia on Thursday, Jan. 14 January 14, 2021
  • Nova Scotia provides little detail on vaccine plan for provincial jails as advocates call for action January 14, 2021
  • Free food and the failure of neo-liberalism January 14, 2021

Commenting policy

All comments on the Halifax Examiner are subject to our commenting policy. You can view our commenting policy here.

Copyright © 2021