In the highly anticipated case of R v. Kidane, the Defendant (K) was charged with committing an armed robbery with a firearm. At the outset, the case seemed “airtight” for the Crown Attorney.
The allegations were that K and a co-accused committed an armed robbery (with a firearm) within 20 feet of a surveillance van in which 3 members of the Toronto Police (32 Division) happened to be conducting an unrelated stake out. The Crown’s case seemed unbeatable because 3 members of the Toronto police were apparently “eye witnesses” to the entire armed robbery. The police had made notes of their direct observations and testified accordingly at the preliminary inquiry of this matter. On the first day of the Superior Court jury trial, K’s coaccused pleaded guilty to a seven year penitentiary sentence. K forged ahead to trial.
After careful and skillful cross examination of the various police witnesses, Robb MacDonald showed startling inconsistencies in the eye witness accounts of the officers. Ultimately, reasonable doubt was raised and a seemingly “unwinnable case” was won. K was acquitted of all charges.