What the jury didn’t hear at trial into OPP Const. Greg Pierzchala’s death

Former Barrie native Const. Greg Pierzchala's trial continues. Mon., April 7, 2025.

Thursday night, a jury convicted Randall McKenzie and Brandi Stewart-Sperry of first-degree murder in the death of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala.Pierzchala was shot six times while responding to a call about a vehicle in the ditch near Hagersville, on Dec. 27, 2022.

CTV News covered the evidence the jury heard extensively during the course of the nearly five week trial.

McKenzie and Stewart-Sperry were sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

We can now report some of the things that were happening behind the scenes that the jury was unaware of, including concerns raised by McKenzie’s lawyer about whether the jurors could remain impartial, and a mid-trial request from Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer that she be acquitted.

“Can they still do their job? My position is we don’t know.”

Early in the trial, jurors sent a note to the judge, saying some “felt uncomfortable” because when they went out to the parking lot for their lunch break or at the end of the day, people were crowding around their vehicles and were slow to move.

Jurors indicated that there were four to six people, who they had seen in the court gallery. Their note indicated that these people “appear to be known to the male defendant,” Randall McKenzie.

Justice Andrew Goodman made it clear to the jury they were not to speculate. He also arranged for additional security for jurors as they went to the parking lot.

The incident prompted McKenzie’s lawyer, Douglas Holt, to suggest that they should bring in jurors one by one and ask each for more details, saying he now had concerns about whether the jurors could remain impartial.

“Can they still do their job?” he asked. “My position is we don’t know.”

Justice Goodman said he was “loathe” to bring in jurors one at a time, but said he would think about it. There was also a brief discussion about the pros and cons of having a jury trial at a larger courthouse where more security was available for jurors, as opposed to the Cayuga courthouse where everyone used the same parking lot.

In the end, Goodman decided he would not ask jurors anything further, saying in his view it was incidental contact. He ordered additional security including extra court officers to escort the jury in and out of the courthouse, and added police in the parking lot.

He also said he would remind the jury about not speculating, and that the people they encountered were unknown, unnamed individuals.

“The matter is now put to bed as far as I’m concerned,” Goodman said.

“There’s simply no case for Ms. Stewart-Sperry to beat.”

Jurors also did not know that, after the crown called all its evidence, Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer asked for a directed verdict, saying his client should be acquitted.

Scott Reid said there was simply no case for Stewart-Sperry to beat, arguing the crown’s case relied on speculation and after the fact conduct.

Reid said the Crown had not called evidence showing Stewart-Sperry knew the shooter was going to fire at a police officer, or that she even knew he had a gun.

Goodman replayed a portion of the body camera footage from the moments before the shooting, that showed Stewart-Sperry covering her mouth with a blanket momentarily, before beginning to answer a question posed to her by Constable Pierzchala.

The crown argued what it did in its closing submissions to the jury: they believe that is evidence that Stewart-Sperry was helping the shooter.

“We allege aiding, distracting the officer,” prosecutor Fraser McCracken said.

Reid also argued that Stewart-Sperry’s after the fact conduct wasn’t enough to convict her.

The Crown said Stewart-Sperry never tried to help the officer after he was shot, instead fleeing with the shooter. He said her post-offense conduct helped give meaning to the shooting as seen on the body worn camera.

Reid argued it’s not illegal to not render aid to an injured person. He also asked what Stewart-Sperry was supposed to do when she was a passenger in a high speed chase, short of diving out of the moving vehicle.

When Justice Goodman returned with his ruling, he told both sides, “this was a very challenging application.”

However, he said after careful assessment, there were some reasonable and available inferences to be drawn, both during the offense and post-offense, that supported the Crown’s case.

He dismissed the request for a direct verdict, but said he would be clear with the jury on not speculating and how they can properly draw inferences from the evidence. Ultimately, the jury found Stewart-Sperry guilty of first-degree murder.

After the verdict, Reid told reporters Stewart-Sperry and her legal team were disappointed with the verdict. “She was certainly hoping it was going to go a different way and I think she thought that it might. We certainly thought that it might.”

Stewart-Sperry’s decision not to testify

While neither accused ultimately took the stand, there was the possibility Stewart-Sperry would until the eleventh hour.

Following the verdict, her lawyer, Scott Reid, declined to comment as to why Stewart-Sperry didn’t tell the court McKenzie was the shooter. “Things like this, there are always a whole host of factors. It’s multifaceted and no one factor runs the day, but there were a lot of different tactical decisions that went into it,” Reid said.

Had Stewart-Sperry decided to testify, though, she could have faced questions about what the judge noted was an extensive criminal record.

He noted she had faced numerous convictions related to crimes of dishonesty, which were relevant to her credibility should she take the stand.

Justice Goodman did agree to redact some portions of her youth criminal record, saying some findings were dated.

Ultimately, Stewart-Sperry did not testify.