Who "owns" a witness?

The short answer is, of course, "no one".

But here is an article about the Edmonton Police Service and Const. Joe Slemko, who is a recognized blood spatter expert. Const. Smelko recently testified in the coroner's inquest into the death of Ian Bush (see earlier post - Shot To Death by the RCMP). Const. Smelko testified that the way Ian Bush died, as related by the RCMP officer, was "not possible".

Turns out that the EPS is not happy with Const. Smelko testifying for the defence. He has been reprimanded for insubordination by the force. Apparently in the eyes of the EPS, the police and Crown are "indivisible" in prosecuting crimes, therefore an officer is in a conflict of interest if they testify for the defense.

THIS IS NUTS.

Sure, the police are essential to laying charges, gathering evidence, investigating, etc. No argument there. But if the police have knowledge of something that can be used to throw doubt on the charges, surely they have an obligation to state that, to make the facts known. Don't they? Of course they do. Otherwise, the police become merely the enforcement arm of the government, and subject to its whims and political agendas. This is not good for anyone.

Const. Smelko is sticking to his belief that a police officer has a duty to collect evidence, regardless of how that evidence looks or may be used. Evidence is evidence - the interpretation of that evidence is debated, weighed and decided at a trial. It is NOT sorted, sifted and decided by the police. The police union is standing behind Const. Smelko, and the police commission has now asked the EPS Chief to come before it and explain the policy to them. This is a good start.

Adding to the stench this "policy" creates is that in the past EPS has been quite happy to have Const. Smelko testify in cases in other countries (England and Australia, for example) - even for the defence. But when Const. Smelko tries to testify against and RCMP officer in Canada, the force has a problem with that? It makes them look like there is an unstated 'agreement' between forces - which is unfair and just plain wrong.

The whole incident stinks.

Stick to your guns, Const. Smelko, and do what's right.