Defence lawyer tries to poke holes in Crown’s case, asks jury to find Adam Drake not guilty

Adam Drake’s defence lawyer made their closing argument in a Halifax murder trial on Monday.

Adam Drake’s defence lawyer tried to poke holes in the Crown’s case against him on Monday.

The defence made their closing arguments to the jury, asking them to find Drake not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of battle rapper Pat Stay.

Defence lawyer Michael Lacy said the Crown is asking jurors to use “confirmation bias” to deliver a guilty verdict – something they took an oath to reject, vowing to judge fairly.

He called out several flaws in the quality of surveillance video, which is a key piece of evidence for the Crown. If it was that clear, the Crown would’ve played the video and sat down, he said.

The defence described the footage as grainy, saying people can’t accurately identify movement, and that the camera’s distance from the stabbing creates another challenge.

Lacy raised several questions, saying jurors might wonder why another man chased down Stay and sucker punched him after, asking if that man was “finishing off what he started?” The jury heard that man was arrested after the stabbing along with another.

Lacy argued there’s no evidence whatsoever that Adam Drake made physical contact with Pat Stay.

He suggested the Crown has simply not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Drake – to the exclusion of other potential suspects – stabbed Pat Stay.

The only “just” decision, according to Lacy, would be to return a not-guilty verdict.

He also highlighted testimony that Drake’s demeanour didn’t change after the stabbing, that he went to a hotel room with a friend’s family and left the next day wearing the same clothing.

He also pointed out that no blood or DNA was detected on Drake’s satchel which he wore that night.

He acknowledged Stay was beloved, that he deserves justice, his family deserves answers, and the community wants closure. However, he added “real justice” doesn’t come from convicting someone “to find peace.”

“You can’t convict Adam Drake on suspicion, uncertainty, or desire to resolve a tragic case,” he said. “You require clear, reliable proof.”

Lacy said finding proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a “heavy burden” to reach because it’s to avoid the risk of convicting an innocent person.

“The defence does not have to prove anything. The burden is on the Crown to overcome the presumption of innocence,” Lacy said.

While wrapping up his closing arguments, Lacy reminded the jury that the Crown gave 19 reasons to convict Drake. But he said jurors only “need one to acquit: reasonable doubt.”

He told the jury they could not rule out at least three other people that he suggested could’ve been responsible and asked them to return a not guilty verdict.

The jury will begin deliberating on Tuesday, after Justice Scott Norton gives final instructions.

For more Nova Scotia news, visit our dedicated provincial page