The jury in Kim Walker's second-degree murder trial began deliberations on Tuesday morning after arguments in the case wrapped up on Friday, but a verdict had not been reached by press time.
In the final week of the trial, which began at the Yorkton Court of Queen's Bench on May 9, Walker's defense counsel attempted to paint him as "a small-town fellow totally unprepared for what was happening to his daughter." Walker's shooting of James Hayward in 2003 was an act of self-defense, said defense attorney Balfour Der.
According to the Crown's Robin Ritter, the shooting was a preplanned act undertaken by Walker to maintain contact with his daughter and to eliminate James Hayward, a man Walker personally disliked.
Defense's closing argument
Closing arguments in the case were heard Friday morning.
Defense attorney Balfour Der repeatedly asked the jury "What would you do if you were Kim Walker?" in his closing statement.
Der argued that Walker, a "loving," "devoted" father, sought assistance for his daughter as best as he knew how, only to be rebutted by those whose job it was to help. After the RCMP's repeated refusals to investigate James Hayward, said Der, it would have been clear to Walker that the police would not protect him from the "bodybuilder juiced up on steroids" he believed to be threatening his life and the life of his daughter.
Walker, said Der, felt a need to protect himself when he went to retrieve his daughter on March 17, 2003, and he took with him the weapon he was most comfortable with: a nine-millimeter pistol. Der argued that if Walker had wanted to simply kill Hayward, he could have chosen any number of more effective, better ranged, or more easily concealed firearms. It made no sense for Walker to knock on the door before entering the house if he had violence planned, Der added.
Terrified of Hayward, Walker fired his gun in a panic when he saw Hayward moving aggressively toward him, the lawyer said. The multiple missed shots despite Walker's close range and training are evidence that the shooting was an "instinctive reaction," he argued. A wound to Hayward's back was the result of him being spun around by the initial shots.
Walker's difficulties under cross-examination were to be expected for a nervous, "timid" man under pressure, said Der. Walker could have invented a version of events that benefitted him, but instead chose to be honest about his faulty memory.
"You may say, as my friend suggested, 'How convenient.' But you know what? It's not convenient. It's not the least bit helpful to his defense."
Der concluded his arguments by asking the jury again what they would have done in Walker's place.
"I say you would act as he did."
Crown's closing argument
Prosecutor Robin Ritter began by imploring the jury to "Let common sense be your guide." He urged the jurors to rely on established facts, not on the unverified theories forwarded by the defense, and to cast aside personal prejudices.
"As jurors in this room, you do not have the luxury to feel sorry for anyone," Ritter said.
Ritter once again emphasized that Walker had other options for helping his daughter and defusing the situation with James Hayward-the most obvious of these being simply walking away when Hayward told him to leave his property on the day of the shooting.
The prosecutor argued that Walker's actions were premeditated and methodical, citing the large number of precise actions the defendant would have needed to go through in order to prepare his weapon for the shooting. He also pointed to testimony from a friend of Walker's daughter who alleged the previous week on the stand that she had heard Walker say he would like to "blow [Hayward's] head off" four days before the shooting.
Walker denied making that comment when he testified earlier in the week, but Ritter expressed skepticism that the defendant could so specifically remember not making the comment in 2003, especially in light of his apparent troubles remembering other events from the same time period.
"Who has more reason to lie?" asked Ritter.
The prosecutor noted that some bullets at the scene of the shooting were found in the basement-proof, he argued, that Walker had his gun pointed down at Hayward as the latter lay dying on the floor.
Ritter then addressed the testimony of Dr. Robin Menzies, the forensic psychiatrist who earlier gave his professional backing to Walker's claims of memory loss. Menzies' report on Walker was written five years after the shooting, noted Ritter, and it originally contained no diagnosis of a dissociative state. Ritter pointed out that Menzies declined to use any objective scientific tests to verify Walker's amnesia, relying instead on his own intuition. He added that Dr. Menzies spent only four hours with Walker across two sessions-less time than the members of the jury had spent watching him.
"I suggest that a jury of 12 people applying their common sense are better able to judge who is lying and who is telling the truth than any psychiatrist," said Ritter.
The defense's theory that the shooting was an act of self-defense defies "common sense and logic," concluded the prosecutor.
