1
Courthouse Report
On March 11th, 2020, a small group of classmates and I attended the Edmonton Law
Courts to observe the procedure of the legal system. During the trial, we did not gather much
personal information due to the lack of timeliness on our part. However, from the information we
gathered, both parties were represented by an attorney. The relationship between the two parties
was unclear, but one can assume that they had some form of a relationship. The events leading
up to the trial lacked clarity to us since we attended the hearing late due to unforeseen
circumstances.
Although we were not there for the starting of the trial, based on the information stated
by the prosecutor, we concluded that it was a rape case that occurred in mid to late 2017.
According to the information provided by the prosecutor, the alleged rape had taken place in the
defendants' condo. The series of events leading up to the alleged rape were unclear, but we know
that before the event occurred, both parties had gone to a bar together. We were also made aware
that the prosecutor was too inebriated to drive herself home, resulting in the defendant ordering
her an uber to his condo and driving her car to his condo. Resulting in both parties arriving at the
condo at separate times. The prosecutor alleged that the defendant raped her in her sleep once
they both arrived at the condo. She came to this conclusion because her cervix was scratched,
and the several pregnancy tests she had taken were positive. These inference impelled the
prosecutor to allege rape, due to her fervent claims regarding never purposefully engaging in
unprotected sex.
Transportation to the court was very accessible, but we decided against taking the train
there, as walking was more time – efficient in comparison to taking the train. Although the
Courthouse Report
On March 11th, 2020, a small group of classmates and I attended the Edmonton Law
Courts to observe the procedure of the legal system. During the trial, we did not gather much
personal information due to the lack of timeliness on our part. However, from the information we
gathered, both parties were represented by an attorney. The relationship between the two parties
was unclear, but one can assume that they had some form of a relationship. The events leading
up to the trial lacked clarity to us since we attended the hearing late due to unforeseen
circumstances.
Although we were not there for the starting of the trial, based on the information stated
by the prosecutor, we concluded that it was a rape case that occurred in mid to late 2017.
According to the information provided by the prosecutor, the alleged rape had taken place in the
defendants' condo. The series of events leading up to the alleged rape were unclear, but we know
that before the event occurred, both parties had gone to a bar together. We were also made aware
that the prosecutor was too inebriated to drive herself home, resulting in the defendant ordering
her an uber to his condo and driving her car to his condo. Resulting in both parties arriving at the
condo at separate times. The prosecutor alleged that the defendant raped her in her sleep once
they both arrived at the condo. She came to this conclusion because her cervix was scratched,
and the several pregnancy tests she had taken were positive. These inference impelled the
prosecutor to allege rape, due to her fervent claims regarding never purposefully engaging in
unprotected sex.
Transportation to the court was very accessible, but we decided against taking the train
there, as walking was more time – efficient in comparison to taking the train. Although the
