The trial of the death of Cindy Gladue - R v Barton, 2015 ABQB 159

Cindy Gladue Versus R V Barton Death Trial
Name:
Institution:
Cindy Glaude Versus RV Barton Death Trial
Introduction
The case between Cindy Glaude and RV Barton is just but one of many other cases that have led to public out roars courtesy of how they have been handled not only by the courts but also by the media. The trial of Cindy Glaude's death, for instance, caused a lot of discourse among the public since the public felt that several issues concerning the case were mishandled. These issues range from the prejudice of indigenous women, disrespects of a deceased body, and bias trial against the late Cindy Glaude. This paper shall, therefore, analyze Glaude and RV Barton's death trial in detail and highlight some of the ideologies that informed public outcry around the case and their gaps and contestation.
Brief Summary of the Case
Cindy Glaude and R. v. Barton's death trial is a case that was initially tried as a murder case, where the accused (Barton) was acquitted for murder charges only to be tried again for manslaughter. This was after Cindy Glaude, a woman from a marginalized community and a sex worker were found dead in Barton's hotel room with an 11 cm wound in her vaginal wall. In the trial proceedings, several issues leading to how Glaude’s death occurred. In the proceedings, the accused, Mr. R. v. Barton, admitted that before he called 911 to report the case, he had tried to clean some of the evidence in the room. Despite all these pieces of evidence from After-the-Fact Conduct of the accused, he was still acquitted of murder charges. On the other, some of the deceased private body parts were presented in the court as part of the evidence. These proceedings resulted in public protest, which culminated in the Supreme Court's direction of a new trial of manslaughter against the accused.
Ideologies that Inform Public Discourse around R.V. Barton Trial Case
Incompetency in Canada’s Criminal Justice System
One of the major factors that prompted several Canadians to take to the street to protest and air their dissatisfaction with how the justice system handled the case was because the verdict of the initial trial was questionable. The public felt that the decisions made by the jury in the case were not on merit compared to the evidence presented. For instance, even after the accused admitted to having tampered with the evidence before calling the police (BARTON, B. D. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA), the judge still managed to influence the jury's acquittal decisions on the case. This was so because the judge only considered the accused After-the-Act Conduct in situations that could influence acquittal decision on the matter and ignored them in situations where they could influence the jury to make an otherwise decision. This is but one ideology that coursed public discourse concerning the case.
The public contestation around this ideology was that if the judge could have considered the After-the-Act Conduct of the accused during the trial without any double standards, then maybe the acquittal verdict could have been overwhelmed by several other factors (Teillet, 2019). For instance, some of the actions in the accused After-the-Act conduct raise questions that could make a typical pers...