ACTS OF DARKNESS
Notorious Criminals, Their Defenders, Prosecuters, and Jailers
Sample from the Audiobook
Buy the Audiobook: On Audible, on Kobo (SOON)
From Chapter 1, "Collateral Damage in the Pursuit of Justice, Vito Buffone and Jeffrey Kompon"
by John L. Hill
Narrated by Lorene Shyba
---
Excerpts from the Book
From the Foreword,
"Velvet Glove Persuasion"
By Salvatore Caramanna
The laws of this country ... apply to us whether one is a
prime minister or a murderer. It is not the judge’s fault
for applying the law to a fact situation before him.
The true victims, if the judge had decided in the opposite way, would have been the law-abiding taxpayers of Canada,
who would have been deprived of compensation should their legal rights be ignored in favour of high-handed officials.
— John L. Hill, Op-Ed in the Ottawa Citizen, 2009
Few lawyers can speak about a legal career as robust, challenging, and rewarding as John Hill’s. As you read through this gripping first-hand insider account of legendary Canadian legal sagas, you will be left in admiration, wondering what this man has not done in his four-decades-plus career fighting for criminal justice in Canada. He has taken on battles that most would fear to tread and won. He has worked with the who’s who of the Canadian criminal justice scene, making him part of that elite group. I have a deep sense of gratitude that John memorialized the achievements and lessons he learned throughout his illustrious legal career, creating a truly fabulous book that is accessible to all. For anyone interested in the inner workings of the criminal justice system and a no-holds-barred, behind-the-scenes look at what defending some of the most dangerous and notorious defendants Canada has ever seen. I am honoured that he asked me to write this foreword.
I first met John in 2004, in my seventh year as a lawyer, when we represented two young women accused of knowingly importing cocaine hidden in their luggage after a week-long Caribbean getaway. I had heard much about John before meeting him from the co-defendants’ counsel in the Gladiators trial that you will read about in this book, the late Edward Sapiano and Douglas Usher. I began my legal career at the firm where Edward and Douglas practiced. I was in the office when Douglas was defending the Gladiators trial with John and Edward. They told me about John’s legendary reputation as a prison law lawyer and his exceptionally fine skills as a criminal defence counsel. By the end of the importing trial with John, I was compelled to upgrade him to superb.
As a young lawyer steeped in the belief that juries always do the right thing and can always be trusted, John provided a fresh perspective in that case. You will read about John’s insights into juries in this book, especially in the chapters “Gladiators” and “Collateral Damage in the Pursuit of Justice.” Our clients’ defence was knowledge: they did not know that cocaine had been secretly sewn into their suitcases the night before they left for Canada. They were unwittingly used as blind mules to transport cocaine into Canada, likely by rogue hotel staff who had their personal information about where they resided in Canada. On their last night, after they had packed, a hotel employee treated them to a night on the town. With hindsight, this ruse gave the cohorts-in-crime at the hotel the chance to plant the cocaine into the luggage lining.
Credibility was going to be the key issue in the trial. The orthodox view on juries amongst the lawyers I trained and worked with to that point was that you never elect judge-alone on an importing case where knowledge is the issue. Judges were simply too jaded and had seen too many far-fetched blind mule tales that they could not be trusted to impartially judge a knowledge defence. The only choice was a jury trial. John challenged my unwavering belief on the day of the trial by raising the idea of re-electing to a judge-alone trial when he found out the judge assigned to our case. I was taken aback.
John’s reasoning was unassuming: we have a good case with two very credible clients whose accounts supported each other, and most importantly, he trusted this specific judge to do the right thing. The latter point directly conflicted with everything I believed about judges and juries at that point in my career. Why gamble our clients’ fates on one man’s opinion when we could have twelve impartial people make the decision? It just made no sense to me, but I kept an open mind. We discussed the issue at length. The tipping point for me was John’s vast experience, coupled with his ability to explain himself with lucid clarity and calmness. You will see that innate talent as you read this book.
From Chapter 7,
Con Code and Tyranny of Silence: David Miclash
By John L. Hill
A penal system must be conceived as a mechanism…
to administer illegalities differentially,
not to eliminate them.
—Michel Foucault
Being called a “tattle tale” is one of the most vicious insults that could be levelled against a youngster in a playground. Yet, the prescription of being an informant has become a widespread cultural taboo. University of Toronto’s Julius Haag has written about “anti-snitching codes” that are widespread amongst Black youths in disadvantaged communities. He points out that except for cases involving severe harm, most young people are reluctant to report crimes to the police or cooperate in police investigations. He posits that public perceptions of policing have become a barrier to effective crime prevention. His conclusion was that there exists an almost overwhelming dissonance between what police are expected to do and what is being done. He writes: "Given the importance of crime reporting and witness cooperation in detecting and solving crimes, the pervasive nature of anti-snitching codes should represent a central concern for the police. Without the willing cooperation of young people in the most affected communities, the Police have little hope of detecting, let alone preventing, many serious crimes."
It has been said that our prisons are a microcosm of society. Given this, snitching would be intolerable within the unique prison society. Prisoners call snitches “rats.” Snitching constitutes a breach of the unwritten governance expectations in the prison population. That standard of conduct is called the “con code.”
However, unlike the greater society where policing discourages silence from those affected by crime, the attitude in prisons from an administrative perspective is that the con code of not ratting can assist prison administrators in keeping inmates relatively safe. Some inmates require personal details to be kept secret, and prison administrators want to avoid any disruption that exposure of confidential information may cause.
An example is the upset caused in 1999 when a computer at Kingston Penitentiary containing sensitive information was inadvertently turned over to inmates. That computer had particulars that might ordinarily be kept secret in a prison. This information included the crime for which a prisoner was serving a sentence; whether an inmate was a sexual offender, if a prisoner cooperated with police or prison officials, whether the inmate’s life had been threatened and by whom, and even, perhaps, if the prison roster designates the offender under an alias due to widespread trial publicity.
The information breach at the now-closed Kingston Penitentiary was treated as extremely serious. Ever-present on the minds of prison authorities was the 1971 Kingston penitentiary riot when sexual predators were rounded up and maimed by a population that dehumanizes pedophiles and sex offenders. Many inmates have been the victims of sexual and physical abuse and lack tolerance for such offenders.
Another class of inmates occupy the lowest rung of the prison hierarchy: informants. These are the so-called “rats”, prisoners who provide information to police or prison staff, often leading to another inmate’s placement in segregation or transfer to a higher-security facility. In the closed world of prison, this is seen as the ultimate betrayal, an act of darkness committed not against the system, but against one’s own.
The unwritten but ironclad “con code” leaves no room for doubt: You don’t rat. The penalty is swift and brutal, anything from a savage beating to a violent death.