
Judge expresses concern cross-examination of complainant in Stronach trial becoming 'a spectacle'
CBC
WARNING: This story references sexual assault allegations and may affect those who have experienced sexual violence or know someone affected by it.
The judge overseeing the sexual assault trial of Canadian businessman Frank Stonach expressed concern that the sixth complainant’s inability to focus on questions was turning the cross-examination into “a spectacle.”
Much like on Wednesday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy repeatedly had to interrupt the complainant on Thursday to tell her to stop talking, as she would veer off in her response to questions to Stonach’s lawyer Leora Shemesh.
Both Molloy and Shemesh expressed frustration that the complainant would continue talking while Shemesh was asking her a question.
“This is a spectacle I’m not comfortable being part of,” Molloy said, as the complainant was excused from the courtroom.
“I’m yelling at this woman. And I need to because she won’t stop.”
Before the lunch recess, Molloy said she might have to halt the cross-examination, if the 73-year-old complainant proceeded in the same manner, and look at whether there was case law to deal with these legal issues.
Molloy said she believed this was the first time in her career she had to raise her voice to a witness.
Molloy said she was “growing increasingly concerned” whether a meaningful cross-examination is possible and that it was feeling like an unfair trial.
“This has become a shouting match and it is not Ms. Shemesh's fault," Molloy said.
Earlier in the day, during cross-examination, as the complainant continued to speak during a question by Shemesh, the defence lawyer, stopped, turned to Molloy and said: "Your honour, I can’t ask the question, I just can’t.”
The complainant was excused and Shemesh asked Molloy if there was anything she could do differently .
"I've never seen this before. I've never been confronted with this before,” Shemesh said.
Molloy said Shemesh wasn’t doing anything wrong, and they brought the complainant back in for more cross-examination. But the issue of the complainant interrupting during questioning and veering off continued.













