And the Verdict Is......

Jury reaches verdict in murder trial

Three men, Glen Monkman, Carlos Tavares and Norris Ponce, have been on trial for 7 weeks in the fatal stabbing of Ming Huynh, on April 30, 2006 at Club Desire in Winnipeg. 

At 1:30 pm today, jurors had come to a verdict.

The jury found Glen Sherman Monkman not guilty of first degree murder, but GUILTY of second degree murder. 

Both Carlos Tavares and Norris Ponce were found not guilty of second degree murder but GUILTY of manslaughter. 

I believe I just witnessed a wrongful conviction, on the part of Tavares and Ponce. 

By convicting Monkman, the jurors clearly accepted the testimony of Danny Simao, who was unreliable, untrustworthy and completely uncredible. His memory was extremely poor and their were inconsistencies in his police statement, preliminary hearing and the trial. He provided different information to each of these sources. The jury was urged by lawyers and the Judge NOT to consider Simao's testimony because he was such a poor witness. Simao claimed that he was with all 3 accused on the day of the murder and that he overheard them planning an attack on the victim, en route to Club Desire. He said that the men were whispering and that he wasn't really paying attention, so how can we be sure, that he heard right? He even admitted himself, that he is better at what he sees than what he hears. He wasn't good at either. He then claimed that one of the accused, threw a bloody knife off a bridge and into the river, after fleeing the scene. His description of the knife and whether their was blood on it, differed throughout the trial.  I believe that Monkman was provoked by the victim, as he was acting aggressively throughout the evening towards others. I believe that Monkman did in fact stab the victim, because he admitted to doing that in court, but only because he was provoked to do so. It could have even been self defence. I thought that he should be convicted of manslaughter, as his lawyer suggested, because their definitely was a doubt raised by his lawyer, as to whether he was provoked or not. If their is a doubt, he cannot be convicted of second degree murder, according to the law. 


In the case of Tavares and Ponce, I completely disagree with their convictions of manslaughter. They were not involved and should have been acquitted of any wrongdoing. By convicting them of manslaughter, it implies that they had no insights as to the attack, but were parties to the offence. I feel as if I have just witnessed a wrongful conviction-- a terrible mistake. Lawyers raised a large doubt as to whether both these men were involved, and therefore, they should not have been convicted at all. The Crown MUST prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and they did not do that. Their was a doubt as to whether Tavares and Ponce had knowledge that Monkman was going to cause harm or death to an individual. Ponce had had an altercation with the victim before he was stabbed, on a street corner. The victim was acting aggressively and moving towards Ponce, as Ponce backed away. No punches were thrown and Ponce did not once, try to fight or provoke the victim. Ponce then disappeared and was not present while the stabbing took place, but left with the 2 other accused in the SUV. Tavares was the one driving the SUV. He was also not present when the stabbing took place and may have no knowledge that it was even going to happen. 


You cannot even consider Simao's testimony, because he is so uncredible-- yet, the jury accepted and believed his testimony? What happened there?


During trial, I had talked with Ponce multiple times while waiting outside the courtroom. He expressed to me, that he was not guilty and couldn't believe he was actually going through all this ordeal of trial. He has no previous record and this was his first charge. He expressed to me, his dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system because he shouldn't have even been in that position of being charged in the first place. He told me that Simao was lying, and it was clear to me, that he was. This man is NOT dangerous and not a risk to the public safety. He was a genuinely kind and funny person. He expressed to me numerous times, how scared and nervous he was. We talked about wrongful convictions and how many are from Manitoba and how prosecutors and police tamper with and suppress evidence. He didn't want to be the next wrongfully convicted person in Canada, but told me that if he was, I should write an article about his case, and I am doing that now, to honour his wishes. It is clear to me, that Ponce had no knowledge that Monkman was going to cause anybody harm, was not aggressive in any way at the club and was not even present when the murder took place. 


During the verdict today, Ian Garber, Ponce's lawyer, argued that Ponce should not be taken into custody. Crown is obviously opposed to that recommendation. Ponce has been free on bail for the past 19 months (1 year and 7 months) and had already served approximately one year in prison before being granted bail. His lawyer argued that he was not a risk to the public and not dangerous because their have been no issues with his bail whatsoever. He has always come to court early, has had no breaches of his curfew, has abstained from alcohol, has lived in the same place and has diligently reported to an officer frequently. 


I completely agreed with his lawyer, that he should not be taken into custody. Unfortunately, the Judge disagreed and ordered that he be taken into custody until his sentencing date. I felt sympathy towards Ponce. He expressed to me, his fears about returning to prison and how horrible it was and I just felt terrible for him, when he was placed in handcuffs and led out of the courtroom by sherrifs officers. Tavares and Monkman have already been in custody up until this point and will remain there. Before Ponce was placed in handcuffs, he gave his watch to his mom, who was sitting in the gallery. Before court, Ponce was extremely nervous and gave his mom one final hug, before heading in to hear his fate. What happened here, is an injustice and is such a sad thing to witness. I feel sympathy towards Tavares' and Ponce's parents and siblings, who were also present in court. Tavares appeared to bclose with his mom as every day during trial, he would whisper to her "I love you," when he came in and out of court and would blow her a kiss. Ponce even told me that he feels horrible for what happened to the victim in this case, and he wishes it hadn't happened, but he didn't do it and wasn't involved. He said he doesn't agree with murder and especially expressed his distaste for murders of children. He told me that he didn't like how the media articles were portraying him. He said it was distorted how they portrayed him as a killer and in a negative light, and didn't want to be seen as such. This man has a heart and is not a bad person. He was trying to be optimistic about what was going to happen. He also told me, "I'm 31, I've never been charged with anything, why would I want to do this and screw up my life?"    

Sentencing date is set for Thursday, March 4th. With a second degree murder conviction, Monkman faces life in prison with parole eligibility set anywhere between 10 and 25 years. The jury chose not to make a recommendation as to the number of years he must serve before his parole eligibility. I just hope that Ponce or Tavares are sentenced to a lengthy period in custody. Because Ponce was successful during his bail and was deemed not a danger to society, why should he be placed in prison now? I feel he could be successful without having to be in prison.