User:DarjeelingTea/sandbox/trial

Xiu Jin Teng is a convicted murderer whose trial for mariticide attracted significant media attention in Canada due to the unorthodox defense tactics employed. Teng's memorable outbursts, in which she frequently railed against prosecutors, the judge, and her own attorneys, often referring to herself in the third person, were widely reported in press accounts of the month-long trial.

Background
Xiu Jin Teng was arrested in February 2012 on charges of causing indignity to a human body. The following month she was arraigned before the Ontario Superior Court and the charges upgraded to first-degree murder in the matter of the death of Dong Hunag, her husband. After repeated delays, the case went to trial in December 2016.

Trial
According to the case presented by the prosecution, on February 24, 2012 Teng placed her two year-old daughter in her SUV and left her home. Her landlord observed Teng depart and later testified that the SUV was packed with personal items and luggage, as though she was moving out. Concerned that Teng was leaving without paying her final month's rent, the landlord entered Teng's home with two neighbors and discovered the body of Teng's husband, Dong Huang. At that moment, Teng returned home and informed the trio that her husband had died the previous week of a heart attack. After the landlord expressed skepticism about the assertion, Teng attempted to flee, but was restrained. Police were then contacted and arrived at the home several minutes later.

An autopsy concluded Teng's husband had been given the sleeping medication Zopiclone, struck on the head with a blunt object, and finally strangled to death with green twine. DNA found on the twine matched Teng's DNA. The prosecution presented evidence that Teng had increased the life insurance policy on her husband shortly before his death to $2 million, necessitating an increase in premium which she could not reasonably have expected to pay had her husband not died straightaway.

Teng's outbursts
Teng called no witnesses in her defense but, instead, focused on trying to establish that the Crown had not established proof beyond reasonable doubt. Throughout the trial she repeatedly attacked judge Ian MacDonnell with insults, sarcasm, and dismissals, referring to him as "Your Majesty", saying "I suggest Your Honor relax", and calling him an "illegal judge". On one occasion, when MacDonnell asked Teng if she wanted to cross-examine a Crown witness, Teng held a sheet of paper in front of her face and shot back, "Ms. Teng is doing paperwork. Why are you bothering me?” On another occasion, asked a question, she responded, "I was napping. What are you talking about?”

Pro se defense
From the time of her indictment in 2012, until her conviction, Teng cycled through a number of different defense attorneys, all of which were paid for through legal aid. Teng dismissed attorneys Chris Hicks, John Rosen, Bob Richardson, and Dan Moore for unspecified reasons. Her fifth attorney, Devin Bains, requested to be removed from the case for "ethical reasons", a request which was granted. The removal of each attorney necessitated a postponement in the trial.

Following Bains' resignation, Anthony Moustacalis was retained as her defense counsel but was dismissed by Teng less than two months later. Teng then secured a further postponement of the trial to interview additional attorneys before filing a Section 11b Charter application, arguing her right to a speedy trial had been infringed. In response, the Crown claimed that Teng was engaged in "legal malingering". The trial ultimately went forward with Teng representing herself pro se.

During periods of the trial reserved for cross-examining witnesses, Teng would address the jury directly to inform them that she had requested an attorney and been denied the request. Prior to excusing the jury to begin deliberations, judge Ian MacDonnell took the unusual step of informing the jury Teng's claims about being denied counsel were not accurate; McDonnell instructed the jury to ignore Teng's pleas for counsel. Despite McDonnell's instructions, one juror expressed misgivings about supporting conviction in light of Teng's claims at having been denied access to an attorney. Because unanimity is required to convict, a vote for acquittal would have resulted in a mistrial. Following a private consultation with McDonnell, the juror ultimately decided to support a guilty verdict.

Teng's pro se defense prompted a discussion about the fairness of trials in which defendants represented themselves, and about a growing trend in Canadian courts where aggressive court room tactics are used as a strategy to derail trials.