deadmonton 2005 - sara easton - william edward wharry jr. trial
Sara Easton, 18, was shot to death October 22nd, 2005.
Easton was Edmonton's thirty-first homicide victim of the year.
William Edward Wharry Jr., 21, was charged with second-degree murder, using a firearm during the commission of an offence and possession of a restricted weapon.
Ongoing Developments
- April 2nd, 2007
Opening statements heard; first witness testifies. - April 3rd, 2007
Wharry's mother testifies about modifications to car; Sara's brother takes the stand. - April 4th, 2007
Eyewitnesses describe shooting. - April 5th, 2007
Wharry's pastor testifies. - April 11th, 2007
A juror is excused. - April 12th, 2007
Court views videotaped confession. - April 13th, 2007
Judge declares mistrial but trial continues anyway. - April 16th, 2007
Crown rests case; defence calls no evidence. - April 19th, 2007
Closing arguments begin. - April 20th, 2007
Closing arguments finish; judge sets decision date. - April 25th, 2007
Verdict comes in. - May 11th, 2007
Sentencing delayed. - June 25th, 2007
Sentencing hearing begins. - June 27th, 2007
Victim impact statements heard. - June 29th, 2007
Wharry sentenced. - June 30th, 2007
William Wharry announces appeal. - July 4th, 2007
Wharry's lawyer files appeal. - August 26th, 2008
Wharry wins earlier parole date.
Related Issues
April 2nd, 2007
Opening statements in the second-degree murder trial of William Edward Wharry Jr. were put before an eight-man four-woman jury and Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheila Greckol.
Presenting the case for the Crown was prosecutor Wade Marke.
Representing the now 23-year-old Wharry was defence lawyer Naeem Rauf, who most recently handled similar duties for Karl Strongman, charged with first-degree murder in connection with the death of Somali cabbie Hassan Mohammed Yussuf.
Marke told the jury they will hear witnesses say a group of people were with Sara Easton when they were drinking at Orlando's 2 Pub & Grill.
Evidence will be introduced, he said, indicating Wharry fired three shots after encountering the group in his car: one hitting a tree, one hitting a pickup truck and the other striking Easton.
"Mr. Wharry turned ... he fired three shots out of that car window ... one of them struck Sara Easton in the face."
“Shortly after, she was pronounced dead,” Marke said.
The Crown lawyer told the jury he intends to prove Wharry is guilty of second-degree murder. He also instructed them not to jump to any conclusions and to use their common sense.
Nauf addressed the jurors and said his client was pleading not guilty to the charge of second-degree murder. He suggested instead the case was one of manslaughter.
The defence lawyer said Wharry would take the witness stand in his own defence.
"He wants to tell you himself what happened in the early morning hours of October 22nd, 2005 when Miss Easton met her death."
"He will tell you as he told police that when he fired three shots, it was into the air."
Nauf said Wharry will testify that he simply wanted to scare Sara Easton and her friends after a dispute with some of the people in the group walking home with the girl near 124th Street and 134th Avenue.
“When he shot the gun behind him, he had no intention of hitting anyone, much less of causing anyone bodily harm or killing anyone,” Rauf stated.
He said Wharry went to police after learning of Sara's death on the radio. He then sought spiritual advice from his pastor and confessed to what he had done. Wharry and the pastor went to police together.
Wharry told police he had been driving home when came across a group of pedestrians. While waiting for them to cross the road, some in the group began “beaking” at him, he said.
Wharry said he swore at them and drove off. After some of the group chased him and threw some stuff at his car, he stopped and fired three shots from a .45-calibre handgun he had just purchased.
Rauf told the court Wharry was crying when he told police he “didn't mean to kill her.”
In the videotaped interview, Wharry told officers “I was just thinking I wanted to scare them. I didn't mean to do it,” quoted Rauf.
"I didn't mean to hit her. I was just trying to scare her."
A police officer asked if he wanted to write a letter of apology to her family. Wharry did so.
Rauf suggested Wharry's statements to police back up the claim for a manslaughter conviction. The police video was expected to be played in court.
Wharry was expected to testify he had just recently bought the handgun and had never shot it before. He said he needed the gun because of the lifestyle he was leading.
“He will tell you it was for self protection,” Rauf said.
With the lawyer admitting his client's involvement in the shooting, the case was reduced to a matter of culpability: was Wharry guilty of second-murder or the reduced charge of manslaughter?
Much of what the defence lawyer stated in his opening remarks was included in an Agreed Statement of Facts submitted jointly with the Crown.
 |
The document asserts three bullets were fired by the driver of the vehicle, with one bullet, from a .45 calibre handgun, striking Easton who was 43.3 metres [142 feet] away.
Wharry also faces charges of using a firearm during the commission of an offence and possession of a restricted weapon stemming from the incident.
The Crown opened its case by setting the scene: it was Sara Easton's eighteenth birthday.
At a party in her home, she ate pizza with family and friends while opening presents.
 |
 |
The picture of celebration was painted by David Easton, Sara's father, taking the stand as the prosecution's first witness.
After photos were taken to commemorate the occasion, Sara headed to the nearby pub with friends.
Easton said he joined his daughter and her pals for a few hours, then left and made his way home. Around 2:30 a.m. he awoke.
On the stand he recalled the knocks on his door.
"People banging on my door ... extremely frantic ... they were screaming for us to wake up, saying there'd been a shooting involving Sara."
"We got up and ran down the street."
"We just ran down to the corner of the next block down. We got there before the ambulance arrived."
Easton found his daughter lying in the middle of the intersection, bleeding to death, her boyfriend at her side.
She had been shot in the face and was pronounced dead in hospital less than an hour later at 3:21 a.m.
 |
 |
 |
 |
The day's proceedings concluded with the Crown presenting crime scene photos.
 |
 |
 |
Emotions ran high in the courtroom as many family members from both sides were in attendance.
The trial was expected to take 16 days over three weeks.
Testimony from Sara's brother, who was present at the time of the shooting, was expected next.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 3rd, 2007
Asked to testify on short notice, William's mother Ann was called to the stand by the Crown.
 |
She said her son was terribly distraught the morning after Sara Easton died.
“He appeared devastated – crying, sobbing,” Ann Wharry said solemnly. “It not something you normally see.”
Wharry's mother said she saw her son around 9:00 a.m., about seven hours after the shooting.
She told the court of the impact Sara's death had on her son.
"He's just not the same person he was two years ago. He's just not Billy."
"He apologises to me all the time."
In addition, the woman told the court she found a shell casing on top of a jar of hand cream on her dresser.
Not knowing who put it there or why, she eventually handed it over to the pastor at a local Baptist church.
It soon became apparent why Ann Wharry was called as a witness.
The Crown was interested in her knowledge of certain modifications that had been performed on her Nissan Maxima. It was her car Wharry was driving on the morning of the shooting.
Asked by Crown prosecutor Wade Marke, Ann Wharry said she was not aware that the airbag had been removed from the Nissan.
 |
 |
 |
Did you something to that dash to remove that airbag and make it a compartment, Marke asked.
"No sir, I did not," Wharry replied.
 |
 |
She also testified she knew nothing of a small red button that had been installed near the compartment and didn't know about the modifications until police returned the car quite some time after the shooting.
The purpose of the compartment and the red button was not revealed in court.
Emotional testimony was heard from Aaron Easton, Sara's older brother, who was on 124th Street along with Sara's boyfriend Sean on the morning of the shooting.
 |
Aaron told the jury that he heard three gunshots and called police even before he knew his sister was shot.
"I dialled 911 on my phone ... then I looked around and I saw Sara lying on the ground."
"We tried to keep her warm. There was blood around her."
"She was bleeding from her ears, her eyes, her nose -- everywhere. There was a puddle forming around her."
"Sean grabbed her ... he was holding her. I wrapped her in my coat."
Paramedics arrived and rushed Sara to the hospital with Aaron and his father following closely behind.
"When we got there they said it wasn't looking good," Aaron said.
"Me and my dad went to be with her on the bed, until she ended up passing away."
In the gallery, Sara's mother was heard quietly crying.
Court then heard testimony from Robert Ewing who was also with Easton and her friends. He outlined how the incident on 124th Street began.
Wharry drove by the group as they were making their way home from drinking at Orlando's 2 Pub and Grill.
Ewing said Wharry was "talking incoherently" as he passed by and that led to to several loud and obscenity-filled exchanges. Some of the group surrounded Wharry's car and yelled at him.
It was then that Wharry drove about a block away, put the car in reverse and came back towards the group. He stopped and then fired three shots from a quarter-block away, Ewing testified.
"They were obvious muzzle flashes, from the muzzle of a gun. They were fired one right after another. There was no in-between."
He described Wharry as facing backwards while sitting in the driver's seat of the car when the gunfire erupted, with his right hand crossing his body and going out the window.
Ewing told jurors the gunman appeared to "aiming at" the group of people.
After seeing the "flashes of light" coming from where he saw the man holding "something" out his car window, Ewing said the vehicle sped away. He vainly ran after it.
"And then I saw Sara lying on the ground," Ewing said.
A heated exchange between Ewing and defence lawyer Naeem Rauf took place during cross-examination.
Ewing admitted that while he couldn't make out the shooter's facial features, he maintained he could see the person "looking at the group."
He also held to his statement that he saw the driver's right arm emerge from the car, holding what he at first thought was a pellet gun.
Ewing testified he could see the driver's red-and-white hat facing in the direction of the group when the gun went off.
Wharry's lawyer had earlier suggested his client had shot "into the air" in an effort to scare those in the group.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 4th, 2007
The trial continued with a parade of witnesses providing details of what took place on 124th Street before, during and after the shooting.
Kevin Denvir took the stand and said it all began when Wharry drove up to Easton's group.
"[He] rolled down his window and asked if someone had said something to him," said Denvir.
"Sean [Sara's boyfriend] said 'nobody was talking to you' and he said 'what was that.' "
After Kevin also told the driver that no one had said anything to him, Wharry drove off to just past where Anthony Harper was walking.
Wharry put the car reverse and backed up to Harper. On the stand Harper testified he approached Wharry's car thinking he knew the driver.
As the man walked up to the car, Wharry extended his arm out the window and put a gun into Harper's stomach. Harper said he immediately backed away with his hands in the air.
Harper also told the court Wharry threatened someone else in their group by pointing a handgun at them.
Both Denvir and Harper said that someone then yelled out that there was a gun.
"He’s got a pellet gun," Harper testified hearing.
Denvir said several people rushed towards Wharry's car to "scare him off."
Three shots then ripped through the morning air. But instead of pellets, they were .45 calibre slugs.
Despite the drama and the tragedy of the shooting, its re-telling in a formal and somber courtroom setting still left room for almost gallows-like humour.
Dwayne Beblow, another one of Sara's friends, was on the stand when defence lawyer Naeem Rauf asked him whether he had seen the gunman when the shots were fired.
"No, I was running," replied the sudden funnyman with a broad smile across his face.
"Who wouldn't?" he continued. "You see a gun – you run."
The near matter-of-fact answers brought waves of laughter from several jurors, the judge and many in the gallery, including the Easton family.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 5th, 2007
Somewhat ironically, the last day of the trial before the Easter break saw a man of the cloth take the stand.
 |
Rev. Richard Sanders of the Shiloh Baptist Church described how William Edward Wharry Jr. was a "broken" man when he saw him two days after Sara's shooting.
After Wharry fired three shots "into the air" he was surprised to see someone fall. He thought the person was simply ducking to avoid the gunfire.
By noon the next day, after hearing a report on the radio, he realised that one of his shots was responsible for Easton's death. Wharry agonised over what to do, and sought guidance from the church.
Rev. Sanders told the court he had known Wharry for five years.
He first became aware of Wharry's situation the day before the troubled man came to see him. Sander's son had told him that one of his friends was in trouble and needed guidance.
 |
He said the 21-year-old walked into the 10727 114th Street church shortly after noon on October 24th, 2005.
“He confessed to me he was involved in the homicide of a young lady which was in the media at the time.”
“He was very open. He wasn’t hiding anything. He was broken,” Sanders said.
“He was filled with remorse. He told me he didn’t mean to kill anybody.”
The two men spent four hours together. “He cried the better part of the hours he was at the church,” the pastor recalled.
“From the time he walked into the church, he was saying he didn’t intend to kill anybody.”
Wharry told Sanders he wasn't the monster the media were calling him.
On the stand Sanders said Wharry told him he was driving home when he came across a group of people walking on the street. He said they started swearing at him and kicking at his car.
Wharry then told him he rolled down his car window and fired three shots to scare them, later learning “a person was killed by one of the bullets.”
The pastor said Wharry had suggested he had just “randomly” fired the weapon, “not even looking, nonchalantly and not really aiming at a person.”
He added Wharry told him he had “felt threatened” when he saw some of Easton's group running towards his car.
Sanders suggested to Wharry that he should turn himself in “for his moral and spiritual health.”
 |
He also told Wharry the police would want have the gun. Wharry had one of his friends bring the gun to Sanders, who immediately checked that it wasn't loaded.
Sanders removed the magazine and put it along with the gun in a brown envelope. He included a spent shell casing given to him by Ann Wharry, William's mother.
Sanders, along with his wife, accompanied Wharry to the downtown police station at around 4:15 p.m. and the young man turned himself in.
Sanders then faced cross-examination from defence lawyer Naeem Rauf. It appeared the lawyer was laying groundwork for his manslaughter argument.
"He told you he was going to fire up into the air," Rauf asked the pastor to repeat.
"Yes," said Sanders.
Sanders had told the court that when he was holding the gun, he thought it was a little heavy to try firing one-handed out a car window into the air.
He agreed with Rauf that Wharry was not a very big guy.
"No, on that day he wasn't very big. He was pretty skinny," Sanders said.
Whether Rauf would later argue the weapon's weight led to the shots fired being lower than intended remained to be seen.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 11th, 2007
An event not usually heard of in a high-profile murder case took place at William Edward Wharry's trial.
A juror was excused, bringing the jury's numbers down to eleven.
A court-ordered publication ban prevented the release of the reason why the juror was excused. There was no indication at whose request the decision was granted.
As has been usual of late, media interest in the trial flagged after opening statements and the presentation of the Crown's key witnesses.
On this date in the trial, an Edmonton police officer gave testimony about his examination of Ann Wharry's Nissan Maxima.
The officer supported the Crown's earlier assertion that the airbag was removed from the passenger side of the car to create a compartment, the suggestion being the cavity could then conceal something such as a gun.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 12th, 2007
Emotions ran high in the courtroom as a video interview was played showing William Edward Wharry Jr. confessing to shooting three bullets out his car window, with one of them killing Sara Easton.
The interview took place two days after the shooting after Wharry turned himself in at police headquarters.
The video was to be the final exhibit in the Crown's case against Wharry, who was expected to take the stand in his defence on April 16th. Closing arguments from the Crown and defence were scheduled for the next day.
In the video Wharry was shown sitting beside his pastor, Rev. Richard Sanders, on a small couch. Across the room, below the frame of the image, was Edmonton police homicide detective Bill Clark.
Det. Clark was also taking part in another trial taking place at the same time. In a nearby courtroom, Clark was testifying at the trial of Ryan Lorne Enright, accused of murdering David Longhurst in August 2005. Ironically, his chief role in that trial was being featured in a video taped interview.
At times heavily sobbing, sometimes crying so hard he couldn't speak, William Wharry related his role in the shooting of Sara Easton.
 |
 |
 |
"Do you want to tell me the story of what happened?" Clark asked.
"I was just driving home and there's this group of people ... and then I was waiting for them to cross the road."
"They started beaking at me and this and that you know ... I mean, I didn't know what their problem was ..."
"But that was it ... fuck off and this and that, right."
"And then I went up the road a bit ... and then they all started chasing my car, like five or ten of them throwing stuff ..."
"And then I just drove up the street ... that's when I shot out the window three times ..."
"I didn't mean to do it ... I was like ... I didn't mean to hit her. I was just trying to scare them ..."
"Did you see the girl go down?" Clark asked.
"I think so, but I mean .. I thought just, you know, they were just ducking ..."
"I wasn't really aiming at them."
"Where were coming from earlier that night?" Clark asked.
"From a bar," came Wharry's reply.
Throughout the 70-minute interview, Wharry repeatedly said he didn't mean to do it.
Sanders of the Shiloh Baptist Church told him he was proud of him for coming forward.
“Monsters hide. You’re not a monster,” comforted the pastor.
Wharry told Clark that after the shooting he drove around all night, thinking about what he had done, and what he was going to do.
The next day, he learned from a radio news broadcast that a girl had died. Wharry said it was then he knew he had killed Sara Easton.
“My thoughts were I done it,” he said.
Clark asked Wharry why he had the gun in the first place. He couldn't say.
"I just figured I'd put it in the car for some reason," Wharry said, adding he purchased the .45 calibre handgun a few years earlier for $800.
On the morning of the shooting, Wharry had the gun under his car seat. As Easton's crowd was rushing toward him, he just reached down and grabbed it.
At this point, Sara Easton's mother was heard sobbing loudly in the back of the courtroom.
Near the end of the interview, Clark asked Wharry what he thought would happen to him.
Wharry broke down and sobbed so hard he couldn't respond for a time.
“Probably go to jail,” finally came the answer.
“What do you think about writing the family a letter of apology,” asked Clark.
“I’ll do anything,” replied Wharry.
Despite providing a detailed and believable account of his role in the shooting, Wharry lied to Clark several times during the interview, about the gun he used and what he did with the car. Wharry also denied he was a drug dealer.
When Clark told him he had been under surveillance after the shooting and had narrowly missed being arrested in a high-risk takedown by police tactical team members, Wharry became more forthcoming.
Wharry told the officer he abandoned his mother's Nissan Maxima because he couldn’t take being in it anymore and kept seeing himself leaning out the window and shooting.
“It was too much for my conscience to handle, you know,” said Wharry.
Wharry had refused to tell police where he had dumped the car, but they had already found the vehicle, minus its plates, in an industrial area near 66th Street and 123rd Avenue.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 13th, 2007
Two days earlier, on April 11th, a juror was excused from the trial. After the move, Justice Sheila Greckol imposed a publication ban, preventing the release of information regarding the highly unusual event.
As the court session began on the morning of April 13th, Justice Greckol declared a mistrial and dismissed the eleven remaining jury members.
 |
“I have come to the conclusion that I must direct a mistrial ... because the process has been tainted,” Greckol stated (pictured above attending the Ending Teen Violence forum at Ross Sheppard Composite High School, December 2006).
And if the surprise announcement required more drama, Greckol provided it by ruling she would continue presiding over the trial and hear the case herself, accepting the evidence already heard.
All this had those closely watching the trial scurrying to locate precedence in Canadian Law; they couldn't it.
The circumstances that caused the mistrial took place on April 11th during a lunch-hour recess. A juror, standing outside and west of the Law Courts building for a cigarette, was approached by a man who said he was a longtime friend of the Easton family.
The man, in his 60s and wearing an eyepatch, told the juror that Wharry had been previously arrested for possessing "marijuana, cocaine and guns."
Wearing a t-shirt that supported the Hells Angels, the man told juror Number Two that “bikers have more respect for the law than this guy.”
The juror did not tell the man he was a member of the jury, but a sheriff advised the court he had observed the man sitting in the gallery.
Juror Number Two then told other members of what had happened, including some of the details of the conversation. A court officer in charge of the jury then told Justice Greckol.
The Justice said in court the imparted information was “prejudicial to the accused.”
Upon hearing Greckol's declaration, defence lawyer Naeem Rauf immediately sought a mistrial, calling the eyepatched man's statements “pretty poisonous evidence.”
Rauf asked the judge to direct the attorney-general to look into having the man charged with obstruction of justice.
“In my opinion, this is an outrageous thing by this gentleman,” said Rauf, adding he was “horrified.”
"It is difficult to believe that this gentleman would not have known that [the man approached] was a juror," Rauf said.
"It is such a serious affront to the purity of the streams of justice. He should be deterred, especially with the extremely prejudicial information he provided."
A police spokesman later confirmed that police initiated an investigation shortly after the events came to light in court. No charges were immediately laid. Wilfully attempting to influence a juror carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
Members of Easton's family gasped as juror Number Two described the man. He had been present in court for several days and had sat among them.
Rauf also questioned why jurors were allowed to mingle with the public, and suggested that jurors be sequestered to prevent similar incidents. Greckol assured Rauf that Chief Justice Allan Wachowich would be examining what occurred during the trial.
Having received consent of both Crown and defence counsel, Greckol ruled there should be a new trial and informed the jury its job was finished. The new trial then began immediately, being heard by Greckol alone.
In her oral submission, Greckol said the decision was in the best interest of the administration of justice in that it would save the substantial resources already invested in the trial.
Both the Crown and defence lawyer believed the ruling was precedent-setting.
Greckol also announced that William Wharry would not be called to the stand.
The Easton and Wharry families declined to comment on the mistrial.
Speaking later outside court, Naeem Rauf praised the juror for coming forward.
“That was really conscientious of him,” he said.
Rauf also praised Greckol's decision to immediately start a new trial for his client and to allow evidence already heard so witnesses do not have to testify again.
It was likely Greckol's only other option would have been to set a new trial date, with Wharry waiting another six-to-eight months in jail – something Rauf didn't want.
Defendants facing murder charges are always tried before a jury, unless both the defence and the Crown consent to trial by judge alone.
Crown prosecutor Wade Marke had earlier rejected Wharry's not guilty plea to the second-degree murder charge and would probably not have been sympathetic to having him tried by judge alone, something Rauf originally desired.
“In a sense, we have gotten what we wanted all along,” the defence lawyer said.
Marke was unavailable for comment.
The issue over whether Justice Sheila Greckol's unprecedented decision was legal and with merit divided legal experts contacted by the Edmonton Journal.
The experts had varied opinions but all agreed starting an immediate new trial, using the old testimony, was unprecedented. A discussion of the matter can be found at the bottom of this page.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 16th, 2007
The first full day of the new trial was as anticlimactic as it was short.
Crown prosecutor Wade Marke announced he had completed presentation of his case.
Defence lawyer Naeem Ruaf called no witnesses, leaving Justice Sheila Greckol to decide if the case for second-degree murder had been proven by the Crown.
Justice Greckol then set aside Thursday, April 19th to hearing closing arguments. A date would then be set for her announcement of verdict.
If found guilty, William Wharry would then have to wait for sentencing arguments from the Crown and the defence, followed by another wait for Greckol's decision.
CTV Edmonton was able to gain an interview with Sara's father, David Easton, for his reaction to the circumstances surrounding, and the man at the centre of, the mistrial.
 |
"Anybody I've talked to – including him – would ever have considered the fact that a member of the jury would be mixing, mingling in with people like the family of the accused or the family of the victims at lunch."
Easton said it was an unfortunate event and figured it was simply a mistake. He added the man who spoke to the juror was extremely upset.
 |
"I mean I've known the guy for forty years. He has nothing but compassion and concern for our family and he would never go out of his way to cause trouble for this trial. It was a serious mistake."
Easton said he was questioned over what the friend was wearing and said his family has never had any association with the motorcycle club mentioned in media reports.
 |
"There's no connection whatsoever between our family and anything like that."
Easton also supported Justice Greckol's decision to continue the trial without delay and looked forward to being back in court soon to see the trial out.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 19th, 2007
Closing arguments began with Crown prosecutor Wade Marke trying to convince Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheila Greckol that when William Wharry fired three shots towards a group of people he did so with the intent to hurt someone.
Quoting precedents from other successful cases, Marke argued that because Wharry intended harm, and Sarah Easton was killed by a bullet to the face, Wharry was guilty of murder.
The Crown prosecutor referred to the police interview videotape shown in court earlier. During the interview, Wharry repeatedly claimed he didn’t intend any harm.
“I wasn’t even really aiming at them … I didn’t mean to kill her… I was thinking I wanted to scare them,” Wharry told police homicide detective Bill Clark.
There’s little difference between “really aiming” and aiming, Marke told Justice Greckol.
The prosecutor presented a police diagram that indicated the impact pattern of the three rounds Wharry fired. While one hit the tire of a pickup truck and another lodged in a tree, all three had gone towards Easton.
Ballistics experts testfied the horizontal spread of the three rounds was 2.2 to six metres wide. The vertical spread was much more defined, with all three rounds between 1.1 metres and 1.6 metres off the pavement after travelling 43 metres.
Marke didn't mince words in his assessment of Wharry's videotaped confession.
"He just finds it really difficult to admit that he callously shot into a group of people and killed a young girl."
"He wanted to do harm to those kids," stated the Crown's lawyer, quoting eyewitnesses who testified that Wharry was clearly leaning out his car window aiming his gun at the group when he fired the three shots out of his stopped car.
"It is my submission that you can infer that pointing a gun out of that car with those people standing there, 43 metres away, he knew someone was going to get hit," said Marke.
"He was intending to hurt somebody in that group. He was intending to kill somebody in that group."
Marke also termed Wharry’s statements to Clark as self-serving, pointing out inconsistencies in what he told the veteran detective.
When asked what he’d done with the Nissan Maxima he drove the morning of the shooting, Wharry initially told police he no longer had it. Then he said he had sold it.
Police found the car in an industrial area near 66th Street and 123rd Avenue, its licence plate torn off, folded and stuffed under a seat.
Wharry's lawyer Naeem Rauf also pointed out inconsistencies when it came time to summarise the case for the defence – inconsistencies in the testimony of the people with Sara Easton the morning after her 18th birthday.
Rauf listed conflicting witness statements involving the precise location of the car when Wharry fired the gun and details about the car, among other things.
At least one testified that during the initial verbal altercation between Sara's group and Wharry, he pulled a gun out from beneath his driver's seat and pointed it at one of Easton's friends, at near-point-blank range.
“One witness said he was waving it around like a toy gun,” Rauf said. “If Mr. Wharry had any intention of causing bodily harm, instead of driving away he would have shot then-and-there.”
“The fact he drove away 40 metres, the fact he didn't use both hands to hold the gun shows he had no intention to hurt anyone.”
“A man is on trial for his life here and we have witnesses saying what they please,” Rauf protested.
The defence lawyer also said Wharry could not have aimed the gun at anyone because it was too dark. Rauf cited the testimony of a gun expert who admitted it was a reasonable possibility the fatal shot was a fluke.
Rauf also reminded the court his client did turn himself in and was not trying to avoid responsibility for Easton's death.
“He acted as a person absolutely willing to take responsibility for what he did, which was a culpable homicide, not a murder,” said Rauf.
The lawyer simply wanted the court to understand Wharry never intended to kill Sara Easton.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 20th, 2007
The second day of closing arguments saw William Wharry's defence lawyer continue his argument for a manslaughter conviction.
Naeem Rauf stood by the claim the gun was “pointed randomly” by Wharry out his car and he had no intention to harm anyone in Sara's group.
“Shooting backwards over his shoulder was, precisely as he said, to scare people away,” Rauf told Justice Greckol.
However, Greckol had a more pressing question regarding intent, specifically why Wharry was driving around with a loaded semi-automatic handgun in his car.
Rauf conceded it was “clearly reprehensible,” but said it doesn’t prove he intended to hurt or kill anyone.
“He admits he did a dangerous thing, he admits he did a foolish thing, but he doesn’t admit he committed murder.”
“He felt threatened,” Rauf told Grekol. “He was demonstrating power, but that is not an intention to kill.”
If Greckol accepts the argument Wharry was shooting into the air and merely trying to scare the group, the justice could convict him of manslaughter.
back to ongoing developments menu
April 25th, 2007
A packed and hushed courtroom was on hand to hear Justice Sheila Greckol announce her decision in the trial of William Edward Wharry Jr.
Justice Greckol found Wharry not guilty of second-degree murder.
Instead, Greckol found Wharry to be guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
 |
“He killed her by accident or mistake,” Greckol ruled, adding she had reasonable doubt that Wharry intended to harm anyone when he fired his gun three times.
Greckol said she based her 16-page ruling on whether Wharry had the state of mind to commit murder on the morning of October 22nd, 2005.
"I'm not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took aim at Sara Easton or others, and in his mind, intended to cause her death or bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause her death," Greckol stated.
She also determined the Crown did not provide enough evidence to prove intent and cited inconsistencies in the testimony provided by witnesses among Sara Easton's friends.
Greckol referred to Wharry's tearful confession and testimony from ballistics experts when considering her decision.
“The evidence concerning whether he took aim or shot randomly is inconsistent,” she ruled.
"There is other evidence consistent with the view that the accused was upset and angry after the altercation; that he had the loaded weapon close at hand; that he reached over his shoulder and shot off into the dark hurriedly and without aiming," Greckol ruled.
The ballistics expert “concluded that, although there was a reasonable possibility that anyone in the intersection would be struck by the shots, there was also a reasonable possibility that the shot that killed Sara Easton was a fluke.”
Court heard that Wharry fired the three shots in quick succession and shot at the group from about half a football field away.
Even though she found Wharry guilty of the lesser charge, she criticised Wharry for carrying a loaded semi-automatic handgun around in his car and for firing it at the group.
“In carrying a loaded handgun in his car, in wielding it at the intersection, in discharging the weapon in the vicinity of young people walking in the streets enjoying themselves, you, Mr. Wharry, have committed a truly reprehensible act,” she said.
"It is extremely disturbing, a terrifying prospect and to be condemned in the strongest possible terms that the accused was carrying a loaded handgun in his car ... in such a way that he ran the risk of causing death or injury to innocent people."
William Wharry's face reddened as he stood to hear Greckol's decision, choking back tears and wiping his eyes.
In the gallery, the families sat on opposite sides. Two court sheriffs stood discretely between them.
One of Sara Easton's friends was heard swearing as the verdict was read out, shouting "What a fucking joke." The man then left the courtroom in anger.
Sara's mother shook uncontrollably during Greckol's 45-minute reading of the verdict, clutching a pearl rosary as she wept. She later fled the courtroom in tears. Sara's father David maintained his composure throughout the reading, occasionally dabbing at his eyes with a tissue.
Wharry's family cried with relief after Greckol concluded with her decision. They hugged defence lawyer Naeem Rauf.
After the verdict, no one from the Wharry or Easton families or Sara's group of friends chose to speak to media.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From a distance, news cameras captured images that spoke volumes as to how the day's verdict carried individual impact. Above, the Wharrys; below Sara's brother Aaron and father David.
The Wharry family let William's lawyer speak for them.
"It's not a victory for anybody," Naeem Rauf said.
"Everyone is cognisant – the community at large – that this was a terrible tragedy. Of course we're all saddened by Sara's death."
"They're very keenly cognisant of the immense loss suffered by the Easton family."
"I think they agree with me that no one who saw Mr. Easton – that is Sara's father and Sara's brother – testify could fail to be profoundly moved by the dignity and restraint with which they gave their evidence."
Wharry was also convicted of possession of a loaded restricted firearm.
Because a firearm was used, Wharry could face a minimum penalty of 4 years in prison to a maximum of life. Parole eligibility, after the 4 years are served, is set by the judge.
Asked to foreshadow the defence's sentencing argument, Nauf revealed little.
"As you know there's a minimum penalty here – because a firearm was involved – with four years. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life. We're going to work within those parameters."
Justice Greckol said she would announce her sentencing decision on May 11th, 2007. Sentencing arguments would also be heard that day.
In the matter of the man who approached a juror, causing the mistrial to be declared, police said there was no evidence that he was a member of a biker gang and that their investigation into jury tampering was still ongoing.
To illustrate a key point in Justice Greckol's decision, CTV Edmonton's David Ewasuk revisited the scene of Sara Easton's murder at the intersection of 124th Street and 134th Avenue in Kensington.
 |
 |
 |
With Ewasuk standing where Easton was struck by a bullet, the camera pulled back to Wharry's approximate firing position in an attempt to provide viewers with the shooter's point of view – half a football field away.
Not afforded CTV Edmonton viewers were details of the focal length the cameraman used for the final frame of the zoom shot. Shorter focal lengths on zoom lenses tend to make distant objects appear further away than they are in life – for more, see the Ewasuk watch.
While the Easton and Wharry families were withholding public comment until after the sentencing decision, friends of Sara decided to make their feelings known through a faxed letter sent to Global Edmonton.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Global Edmonton broadcast illustrations of the faxed statement on their late night news program.
back to ongoing developments menu
May 11th, 2007
On the day William Edward Wharry Jr. was to hear a sentencing decision for his manslaughter conviction, the Crown prosecutor sought to introduce evidence about his past.
Prosecutor Wade Marke asked Justice Sheila Greckol to take into account other crimes Wharry was once accused of.
Wharry, caught by police in 2004 reportedly selling drugs to an undercover officer, was never charged or convicted.
"Now that he's convicted, it's important for the court to have a full view of his background," Marke said, adding the evidence will show Wharry’s character.
Needless to say, Wharry's defence lawyer objected to the move.
"It's frankly disgraceful that this is piled on me at the last minute," said Naeem Rauf.
Rauf later apologised to the Crown, saying it wasn't his fault. However, he was quoted as saying new information amounts to “character assassination.”
The defence lawyer said if the Crown wants to use the drug-pushing issue in sentencing, it must first prove that Wharry was guilty of that offence.
Due to the anticipated complexity of evidence admissibility arguments, Justice Sheila Greckol set aside five days for the hearing beginning June 25th, 2007.
Wharry's family told 630 CHED radio they just wished the matter would end.
back to ongoing developments menu
June 25th - 26th, 2007
The scheduled five-day sentencing hearing for William Edward Wharry Jr. opened with an Agreed Statement of Facts being entered into the record. The statement spoke as much to Wharry's past as it did to a previously unknown practice of the Edmonton Police Service: trading guns for freedom.
 |
 |
Justice Sheila Greckol heard evidence from gang expert Constable Kevin Berg who testified he believed Wharry was a drug runner and a gang member because he hung around with suspected gang-members.
Berg testified a police informant confirmed that Wharry was a drug delivery boy for the dial-a-doper Kelly Kratke drug gang, and that he saw Wharry with other gang members and dealing drugs on one occasion.
Berg also outlined that it was common practise to release drug offenders in exchange for their giving up guns.
Court heard Wharry was picked up on an outstanding warrant for violating the Gaming and Liquor Act in January 2004. Wharry told police he could offer them guns in exchange for being released.
 |
 |
"Mr. Wharry made a phone call and within 15 minutes one of [his] associates dropped off two guns," read the statement.
A police officer told Wharry that two guns were not enough to secure his release.
"Mr. Wharry made another phone call and within 10 minutes, one of [his] associates delivered another illegal handgun to a vacant church lot," the statement continued.
Police then accepted the deal and Wharry turned over a shotgun, a restricted revolver and a prohibited semi-automatic handgun.
Berg, a member of the Integrated Crime Unit, testified that gang members frequently offered to trade stashed guns exclusively kept to barter for freedom or reduced charges.
"They offer up the guns as an exchange for release," Berg said. "That is common among all groups."
Berg said police discontinued the practise fearing public reaction that possible criminals were escaping justice as part of a simple gun confiscation program.
"Now we have to get permission, not just from our sergeant but from our staff sergeant," Berg said. "We used to be able to do it on our own. Now we have to go up the chain of command."
"I would imagine there are some legalities with it down the road," Berg told Crown prosecutor Wade Marke. "It's public perception."
Edmonton police would not confirm or deny the practise took place, stating that Wharry's case was still before the courts.
The "guns for freedom" issue was the subject of an Edmonton Journal article excerpted below that sought the opinion of criminologist Bill Pitt.
In the Agreed Statement of Facts, Wharry admitted to selling cocaine to a female undercover officer on four separate occasions between February 14th and March 18th, 2004. He was never arrested or charged.
Defence lawyer Naeem Rauf stated that Berg's testimony was hardly evidence that Wharry was a gang member.
After all, he said, Christ hung around with prostitutes and fishermen.
Under cross-examination, Berg admitted that he did not seize any drugs from Wharry and that he did not know whether Wharry knew his friends were gang members.
Rauf told 630 CHED Radio reporter Byron Christopher he was looking for a five to six year term for his client less time served in the Edmonton Remand Centre.
Wharry would likely receive 2-for-1 credit but Rauf asked the court to consider 3-for-1 credit citing current crowding conditions in the centre.
The following day, Rauf withdrew the request and as a result Wharry won't have to testify about conditions at the holding facility (and sparing him cross-examination questioning from the Crown).
For its part, Crown prosecutor Wade Marke asked that Wharry serve life in prison for the manslaughter charge and ten years for possession of a restricted weapon.
Marke said a message must be sent out to "gangster thugs" who cruise Edmonton streets with loaded guns.
"We need to take back our streets," Marke said while listing off the names of people who had been recently gunned to death.
"Almost every month in Edmonton, someone is dying from gunshots," he said.
Marke stated the case was "tantamount to murder" and accused Wharry of "callously" shooting at a group of people.
"Mr. Wharry was a shooting death waiting to happen ... with the temper that he displayed," Marke told Justice Greckol.
"This is a case where life imprisonment is necessary."
In a pre-sentence report submitted in evidence, Wharry said the event had "ruined his life." The probation officer who wrote the report noted Wharry seemed to take "minimal responsibility" for his actions and "appears to express remorse" only for his own plight.
Wharry also denied being involved with organised crime or gang activity, claiming only his "lifestyle" required him to carry a gun.
Late on the second day of the hearing the defence began its sentencing arguments.
Rauf reminded the court that his client had no prior convictions for violent offences.
"That gun was never fired when Mr. Wharry was at close range."
"If there had been any intent on his part ... would you not think the gun would have been fired at the intersection?" Rauf asked of Greckol.
The first half of the third day of the hearing was taken up by Wharry's defence lawyer continuing his arguments.
Naeem Rauf read a letter from his client to the Easton family out loud in court. The undated letter was written in October 2005 when Wharry was in the Edmonton Remand Centre. In the note he wrote that he felt like he was dead inside after finding out he'd killed someone.
"I can't begin to imagine how you are feeling. I just want you to know how sorry I am and if I could take that night back I would. I would give anything to take that night back."
“I know you guys probably think I'm a monster, but please believe me, I'm not really a monster.”
"I totally regret pulling the trigger ... I really am sorry for taking your daughter out of your lives and I am truly sorry for what I have done."
Rauf argued that Wharry was from a good family, which prompted Justice Greckol to ask how a good loving family could produce a person who ended up selling drugs.
Rauf responded with a question of his own: how could the daughter of the Chief Justice of Alberta end up a drug addict in Vancouver?
It's hard to explain, Rauf offered.
back to ongoing developments menu
June 27th, 2007
The balance of the third day of William Edward Wharry Jr.'s sentencing hearing was taken up by the reading of victim impact statements.
Sara Easton's mother and grandmother braved their grief and spoke to the court. But it was Sara's father David who offered the most poignant and touching words.
Reading from a two-page statement, he spoke calmly of a recurring vision he “too often” gets of his slain daughter.
“It's brutal and it's always the same. It shakes my body to the core. Worst of all, it always comes to me when I look at a picture of Sara. It only takes moments.”
"I see her brilliant natural smile and I hear her scold me lightly, lovingly, 'Dad ...' "
“Then, in the middle of that boisterous, beautiful laugh, I see the bullet crash into her face.”
“I can't stop the vision no matter how hard I try. It comes every time. I try to shut it off before it happens, but I'm always too late. It happens so fast. How can I live my life without looking at her pictures?”
"I'll live the rest of my life remembering her in the street, watching her friend holding her face, trying to hold back the blood."
"I'll never forget seeing her coughing up several cups of blood as they moved her and knowing, right then, she wouldn't survive."
“I'll remember my son and his and Sara's friends suffering the horror as well, screaming in denial and shock.”
"Now when I cry, I fear that I am putting the people I love through my pain and they all have enough of their own."
"I will just get slapped with a tidal wave of depression and I can't stop the tears. I hope I don't spend the rest of my life this way."
"I'll never be able to stop imagining what Sara could have done for herself in life and the joys she could and should have experienced."
"I will always selfishly regret I could not share that life with her."
"I know that I and my family will never be the same."
The father also told of the moment when he heard a doctor say "she's gone," how the hospital room emptied save for the nurses who cleaned Sara up in an attempt to restore her dignity.
Easton said he had lost his faith and will live forever with the guilt that he could not save his daughter.
As the grieving father spoke, he looked directly at the man responsible for his loss.
Sitting beside his defence lawyer, Billy Wharry just stared straight ahead into space, offering the man no reaction, no sign that he felt his anguish.
The only sound in the courtroom came from Easton's former wife – Sara's mother – who sobbed loudly as she rocked back and forth with her head in her hands.
It became too much for the woman. As David finished, she ran crying from the courtroom.
Madame Justice Sheila Greckol announced she would render her sentencing decision on Friday, June 29th.
The sentence for manslaughter can range from time served to life in prison.
Because a firearm was used, Wharry faces a minimum penalty of 4 years. Parole eligibility, after the 4 years are served, is set by the judge.
If given the five year sentence the defence was asking for, Wharry would receive the standard 2-for-1 credit for the 20 months he has spent in the Remand Centre, leaving him with 20 months to serve.
back to ongoing developments menu
June 29th, 2007
Justice Sheila Greckol of Court of Queen's Bench sentenced William Edward Wharry Jr. to 12 years in prison on the manslaughter conviction and an additional two years, to be served consecutively, for using a firearm during the commission of an offence and for possession of a restricted weapon.
 |
Greckol ordered Wharry to serve half his sentence before being eligible for parole.
With forty month's credit for time served, Wharry could apply for release in October 2012 after spending five years and four months behind bars. He will be 29 years old.
Wharry also received a lifetime weapons ban.
Justice Sheila Greckol said she took into account Wharry's youth and genuine remorse, but she said a message must be sent to those who carry illegal guns on Edmonton streets.
"Random, senseless violence of this type will not be tolerated," the justice said, explaining why she imposed a such heavy sentence.
"He was travelling the city with a .45 calibre handgun. It was a tragedy waiting to happen.
"It is essential to impose a sentence on you commensurate with the gravity of the violence."
"A severe sentence will communicate the abhorrence of the community to this type of crime and will convey to Mr. Wharry, to his associates and to the community at large that random, senseless violence will not be tolerated," Greckol said.
"It is a terrifying prospect for law-abiding citizens to think that they are vulnerable to random acts of violence, that they are at the mercy of criminals that present this kind of danger to the community.
"It is obvious to all that youth crime and the use of weapons by young people in this community presents a pressing and real concern."
Describing the slaying as "lethal and brutal ... with little foresight," Greckol noted the Easton family had been "unnecessarily and indelibly harmed" by Sara's death.
"This is surely a parent's worst nightmare," said Greckol.
The justice referred to the victim impact statement given by Sara's father.
"Mr. Easton's story is the most poignant indictment of a society in which guns and violence are prevalent."
Greckol's decision brought tears to family and friends of both Easton and Wharry. A friend of Sara's, who was at the scene of the shooting, said: "Big deal."
A crying Wharry asked to make a statement and then read a hand-written letter of apology to Sara Easton's family in a trembling voice.
"Words can't begin to describe the pain I have caused your family and loved ones of your daughter."
"I want you to know that a day doesn't go by that I don't think of that tragic night."
"There are many nights I have cried where I could cry no more for your family. I want you to know I would do anything to take that night back if I could."
"I am truly sorry for the pain and heartache or any kind of void I have brought to your lives. I hang my head in shame and I thank you for hearing what I have to say."
"I am truly sorry," he added.
A full-size version of the letter can be seen here.
Outside court, defence lawyer Naeem Rauf called the sentence "outrageous."
 |
"I will certainly be recommending an appeal," he said, adding that decision would be left to Wharry.
"I think the public is entitled to criticise decisions.
"I was shocked and appalled by the sentence – how can it be justified?"" asked Rauf who cited several heinous crimes that had garnered much less punishment.
Rauf also speculated that given the nature of the crime, Wharry would be denied parole when he first applies for it. Wharry has 30 days in which to decide to file his appeal.
Appearing still in shock, David Easton spoke to the media.
 |
 |
 |
"I don't think there's any justice that could be done for us."
"We don't know what closure is. How could we get over this? It just one step ... moving along ... little things go by ... time goes on."
 |
 |
 |
"Personally nothing will change for us but we just hope that it might save someone else from going through this type of ordeal."
About Wharry, the father had little to offer.
"He's a victim of his upbringing, you could say. He has to pay for what he does. He's not fully to blame for is situation I don't think."
 |
 |
"She was a wonderful lady and it's a terrible loss to our society that we lose people like that," David said of his daughter. "She was a wonderful girl."
 |
 |
The Wharry family chose not to make a public appearance.
An Edmonton Sun news poll asked Edmontonians "Was 14 years for manslaughter an appropriate sentence for the shooting of Sara Easton?"
60% of respondents voted No while 40% voted Yes.
925 voted on the one-day voluntary poll which allowed only one response per computer.
back to ongoing developments menu
June 30th, 2007
Ann Wharry, William's mother, told 630 CHED Radio reporter Byron Christopher that her son planned to appeal his sentence.
The mother told the reporter she spoke to her son at the Edmonton Remand Centre and William indicated he would definitely appeal.
In what seemed to be their first public reaction to the sentence, Ann Wharry said her family felt the 14-year sentence was too harsh.
Naeem Rauf, Wharry's defence lawyer, said previously he was going to recommend an appeal and had planned to meet with Wharry at the Remand Center over the weekend to find out what his client wanted to do.
It became apparent Rauf got his instructions without having to do much convincing.
back to ongoing developments menu
July 4th, 2007
William Wharry's defence lawyer Naeem Rauf appeared in court and submitted notice of his client's wish to launch an appeal of his sentence.
In the two-page hand-written document, Wharry said he was appealing because the 14-year sentence was "harsh, excessive and unfit."
Also raised was a matter of legal procedure.
The document claimed that before Justice Sheila Greckol determined her sentence, she was supposed to ask whether Wharry had anything to say in his defence (that's the law, according to Rauf).
At the June 29th hearing Greckol first sentenced Wharry, then she asked him if he had anything to offer. A copy of the hand-written note Wharry read out in court can be seen here.
No dates have been set to hear the appeal.
According to 630 CHED's Byron Christopher, Wharry was transferred from the Edmonton Remand Centre to the Edmonton Institution maximum security facility on July 17th, 2007 to serve his sentence.
back to ongoing developments menu
The issue over whether Justice Sheila Greckol's unprecedented decision was legal and with merit divided legal experts contacted by the Edmonton Journal.
The experts had varied opinions but all agreed starting an immediate new trial, using the old testimony, was unprecedented.
“It's highly unusual procedure,” remarked University of Alberta law professor Steven Penney.
University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand said Greckol had no right to order an immediate new trial with herself as the judge, and she had no right to apply the evidence heard in the first trial to the new proceeding.
 |
“It's improper. There's no jurisdiction to do it. Yes, the Crown and defence can agree to do things, but what they can't agree to do is something that the judge doesn't have jurisdiction to do," Anand said.
“When Justice Greckol declared a mistrial, that means that trial is over, and when she declared that trial over, her jurisdiction over the matter was over. It's finished.”
"What Justice Greckol has done is at the very least contentious," Anand added. "Why would one risk an appeal when one simply has to order a new two-week trial?"
If Greckol's verdict displeases William Wharry, a new defence lawyer could come in and win a new trial by arguing that an improper procedure was followed, Anand argued.
If the Crown wants to appeal the verdict, it will have a harder time doing this, Anand said, pointing out the Crown consented to Greckol's plan.
Anand said a new trial was warranted even if witnesses must be called back.
"Let's face it, this isn't Air India. This is a two-week trial. It's not going to cost much to have these people come back."
Futhermore, even if a new trial was ordered, Wharry's lawyer could make a charter application.
The defence could argue there was an unreasonable delay in the proceedings against Wharry, because any mistake made by the trial judge would count against the Crown in terms of an unreasonable delay, not against the defence according to Anand.
However, Edmonton defence lawyer Marvin Bloos said Greckol was likely within her rights. Bloos said her decision would be standard practice in Great Britain but the issue falls between the lines in Canada.
 |
“I couldn't find anything that says you can do it, but I'm also not aware of anything that would say you can't,” Bloos said.
"And a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench has inherent jurisdiction."
Greckol is permitted to act in the best interest of all parties, so long as they consent, he said.
"I felt the decision, given that the parties [Crown and defence] agreed, was a wise one.
"It will allow a resolution to this matter, which I'm certain is weighing heavily on all of the parties concerned, both the young fellow that's been accused and the family of the young girl that was killed," Bloos said.
"No one, I'm sure, wants this to drag on."
return to narrative | back to ongoing developments menu
In an article published by the Edmonton Journal, University of Alberta criminologist Bill Pitt suggested Sarah Easton may have died because a "stupid" guns-for-freedom exchange scheme released her killer from police custody.
 |
"It quite possibly has cost this young lady her life," Pitt said.
"It's offensive to think that people can get out of the criminal justice system by supplying illegal weapons.
"By keeping a stupid policy like this in place, what you're doing is in fact aiding and abetting gangsterism."
"This is a program that should be hit over the head with a very blunt instrument and be put away."
"They cut a deal for another gun," Pitt continued. "So I guess you could make the case that the third gun was the equivalent of her life."
The criminologist suggested that it was naive for police to think a guns-for-freedom exchange would reduce the number of firearms on the streets.
He said gang members could easily replenish gun supplies and the practise encouraged the import of illegal weapons from the United States.
"You have incredibly limited upside and an incredibly detrimental downside. So why do it?" Pitt asked. "You can't defend this, something that most people would say is wrong."
For more about the issue, visit the Other Police Matters - Guns For Freedom page.
return to narrative | back to ongoing developments menu
August 26th, 2008
In a written decision, the Court of Appeal of Alberta rejected 24-year-old William Edward Wharry Jr.'s argument that his 12-year sentence for manslaughter was excessive.
However, Wharry was granted a chance at getting out on parole a year earlier.
The panel of three judges rejected Wharry's claim in part because the sentence imposed was meant to deter other criminals from committing similar crimes.
"Deterrent sentencing serves two principal functions: to scare potential offenders and to reinvigorate the morale and confidence of the law-abiding," Court of Appeal Justice Jack Watson wrote on behalf of the panel.
"I cannot say that the trial judge reached a plainly unreasonable conclusion, even if her sentence is more severe than the majority of cases given to her.
"I do not find a total of 14 years to be unduly harsh or crushing on the facts here.
"The sentence is not only to instill the controlling emotion of fear in potential firearm offenders, but also to make clear to everyone that the Court's resolve in stemming the dangers of criminal misuse of firearms has not waned and that neither the Court nor the public has surrendered."
Wharry's lawyer Naeem Rauf had argued Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheila Greckol erred by not giving him enough credit for his remorse, which included surrendering to police after speaking to his pastor following the October 22nd, 2005 shooting, admitting to pulling the trigger, writing a letter of apology to Sara's family and trying to plead guilty to manslaughter when the trial started.
The appeal panel did agree to reduce Wharry's parole eligibilty because his 40 months of pre-sentence custody credit was incorrectly applied to his two-year sentence for possessing a loaded restricted gun.
As the result of complex legal mathematics, the panel decided the credit should be applied instead to his 12-year manslaughter sentence, effectively reducing it to a term of eight years and eight months.
Wharry had been ordered by Justice Greckol to serve half his sentence before being eligible to apply for parole. He now becomes eligible after 52 months, 12 months earlier than the original sentence structure.
The panel also upheld Greckol's ruling that Wharry serve half his time before being allowed to apply for parole.
back to ongoing developments menu
During the course of story coverage, many images are recorded but not all are published. Some are redundant, some are of less than optimal quality and some do not fit editorial context.
For the interest of readers, these "outtakes" can be viewed here. Note: not all images have been reduced in file size – page may be slow in loading.
back to ongoing developments menu
movies | television | radio | web watch | final credits | edmonton | about this site | site map | contact us
The Last Link on the Left. Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Stuart P. Bayens. All rights reserved.
This page updated
00:09 2008-08-27.