Warning: Graphic content The jury at a murder trial in Saint John, N.B., has started deliberating after the Crown and defence delivered their closing arguments Tuesday morning. Two jurors were dismissed prior to final deliberations, which started just before 2 p.m., leaving 12 jurors to decide on the verdict. Roman Kamyshnyy, 46, is accused of murdering a 17-year-old boy and a 10-year-old boy in Saint John, N.B., in January 2025. Defence lawyer Shanna Wicks, who is representing Kamyshnyy, told the court Tuesday that nothing “has been easy about this trial.” “You’ve seen and heard many difficult and emotional things over the course of the last couple of weeks,” Wicks told the 14-member jury during her closing arguments. “First-degree murder is one of the most serious offences that one can face. The bar to reach this verdict should be high, and it is.” It is alleged that Kamyshnyy stabbed the two boys to death in an apartment in the city’s north end before trying to take his own life with a nail gun to his head the morning of Jan. 29, 2025. Kamyshnyy has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder. ‘There was no plan’ Wicks told the jury that the accused didn’t plan to kill the boys, whose identities are protected under a publication ban. She detailed how the nail gun Kamyshnyy used on himself was purchased for work purposes in his job as a truck driver for Midland Transport. Wicks also told the jury the knives used in the murders were from the kitchen in the apartment and not purchased beforehand specifically to carry out the stabbings. She also reminded the jury that Kamyshnyy has no memory of the night before or the morning of the killings. “He told you there was no plan,” Wicks said of the murders. “He told you he could not even imagine it, that the notion is 100 per cent, 1,000 per cent untrue.” Wicks’s closing argument to the jury lasted around eight minutes. ‘Driven by vengeance’ Crown prosecutor Elaina Campbell did not mince words when addressing the jury during her closing remarks. “This is a case about desperate vengeance” Campbell said at the start. “[C.D. and A.B] did not die because of an accident or an unpreventable tragedy. They died because the accused used their lives as a weapon to execute a plan, killings, driven by vengeance.” For over half an hour, Campbell walked the jury through the events leading up to the deaths of the boys, identified as A.B. and C.D. due to the publication ban. She detailed various letters, documents and videos created by Kamyshnyy in the days before the murders. The Crown argued the boys were killed to “punish” Witness A, who took the stand early in the trial. Their identity, as well as details that may identify Witness A, are protected under a publication ban. When the Crown said Kamyshnyy was “obsessed” with Witness A, the accused shook his head and laughed to himself. One of the letters read by Campbell during her closing argument was written by Kamyshnyy and signed two days prior to the killings. Kamyshnyy has admitted to writing the letter, but debates when it was actually written. “To Canadian officials, my name is Roman Kamyshnyy and I’m fully responsible for this situation,” Campbell read to the courtroom from the letter. Campbell reminded the jurors about the testimony from neighbours who lived in the apartment directly below Kamyshnyy and what they heard above them that morning, which they testified sounded like “furniture being thrown around.” She said what they heard were the final moments of C.D.’s life before he was stabbed to death just steps away from the apartment door. “The plan was to murder the boys,” Campbell told the court. “Although what happened … might not coincide with the exact details or his original plan, it doesn’t have to. Roman Kamyshnyy planned and he deliberated killing the boys. “He met the objectives he had set out days prior.” Jury receives final instructions Justice Darrell Stephenson began outlining his final instructions for the jury just after 10:30 a.m. Tuesday. “In this trial, I am the judge of law. You are the judge of facts,” Stephenson told the jury. “As judge of the law, it is my duty to preside over the trial. I am the sole judge of the law, and it is your duty to accept the law as I explain it to you.” Stephenson explained the two counts of first-degree murder are separate charges and both must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to reach a guilty verdict. Stephenson told the jury that a motive behind the killings is not an “essential element” the Crown must prove in order to find him guilty on both counts. He also gave specific instructions related to Kamyshnyy’s testimony. “When a person charged with an offence testifies, you must assess that evidence as you would assess the testimony with any other witness,” Stephenson said. “You must accept all, part, or none of Mr. Kamyshnyy’s evidence. You must not presume that an accused who testifies will lie out of self-interest or to avoid being convicted.” He also provided the jury with a summary of the evidence and testimony presented during the trial. Stephenson ended his instructions by detailing all the possible outcomes of the multi-week trial using a “decision tree.” Possible outcomes include a guilty verdict for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter or assault, or a not-guilty verdict. He reminded the jury their decision must be unanimous before turning in any verdict. “If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of A.B. and/or C.D. was both planned and deliberate, you must find Mr. Kamyshnyy guilty of first-degree murder on that count.” Around two-and-a-half hours after the jury was sent to deliberate, they asked to re-listen to the testimony of Witness A. The jury will return on Wednesday morning to continue listening to Witness A’s testimony. For more New Brunswick news, visit our dedicated provincial page.
