UNFAIR TRIAL FEARED

Affidavits' Release Ripped By Lawyers

Six former drug cops facing criminal charges and named in a series of
affidavits released in the Simon Yeung appeal could suffer prejudice at
trial, their lawyers said. Earl Levy, who represented Staff-Sgt. John
Schertzer and detectives Steve Correia, Joseph Miched, Raymond Pollard,
Richard Benoit and Ned Maodus, said while precise details may be forgotten
at trial a year or two from now, prospective jurors might not be able to
purge a general picture from their minds.

Acting for four officers who were named as unindicted co-conspirators and
other cops mentioned but not charged, lawyer Peter Brauti questioned why
the affidavit referred to allegations against uncharged cops.

When it comes to evidence, "you either get it, or you don't," Brauti said.

"It was totally unnecessary and unfair to the officers."

Brauti conceded that he and Levy did not have much of a legal foothold when
they argued the affidavits should remain sealed to Justices David Doherty,
Michael Moldaver and Marc Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

TAKEN TO TASK BY JUDGES

Levy had barely began decrying how the material could prejudice the trials
of the six officers, when all three appeal court justices took him to task.

The justices said the fact the affidavits contained prejudicial materials
did not matter.

The test, said, Justice Moldaver, is "at the end of the day, can you get a
fair trial".

"I've probably looked at these affidavits four or five times now," Moldaver
said.

"I still can't understand who is who. Even if the press published the whole
thing tomorrow, and even if I read the whole thing tomorrow, I still
couldn't understand who is who."

The first of the seven affidavits filed in the appeal of Simon Yeung go
back to July 5, 2001, when Toronto Police internal affairs Det.-Sgt. Randy
Franks wrote an affidavit detailing what he had found in his probe of the case.

Yeung had pleaded guilty to possession of heroin for the purposes of
trafficking in 1999 after being picked up by Staff-Sgt. John Schertzer's crew.

He had served 18 months of a 45-month sentence when police and prosecutors
told him they would support an appeal.

Franks wrote some officers in the Schertzer team are alleged to have hidden
the role of a drug user who worked for them to set up Yeung. By law only
confidential informants can be shielded.

Franks alleged that at a preliminary hearing in the Yeung case, Schertzer,
Miched and Correia "may have perjured themselves and obstructed justice."

RCMP Chief Supt. John Neily's affidavits were filed in an effort to keep
disclosure on the Yeung matter under wraps until after his probe had
yielded charges against drug squad officers.

In his first affidavit of Dec. 17, 2001, Neily claimed his task force had
uncovered information "that demonstrates a pattern of misconduct by
officers .. in the Yeung matter."

'ACTS OF DISHONESTY'

Neily alleged that evidence suggested certain officers had "acted in
concert in committing acts of dishonesty commencing in 1995." This included
dealings with confidential informants, search warrants and testimony.

The impact on the administration of justice "is tremendous," Neily wrote.

In a subsequent affidavit, Neily said the task force had discovered that
information attributed to confidential informants had not been given by the
stated informant and informants had been given drugs for information.

Neily wrote that suspect officers memo books for the "bulk" of the probe
timeline were "missing."