Cipriano mistrial: Justice served or duelling egos?

Did Justice of the Peace Susan Hilton really need to declare a mistrial in the case of Rita Cipriano, accused of voting irregularities in the 2006 municipal election?

Or was the mistrial simply the result of a battle of egos between Hilton and Cipriano's lawyer, Donald Orazietti?

Today at the Sault Ste. Marie Court House, Superior Court Judge Ian McMillan wondered out loud whether the latter might be true.

Judge McMillan heard Orazietti argue that the mistrial was unnecessary and Justice of the Peace Hilton should be forced to render a decision on Cipriano's case.

The three-day trial was close to complete in early March when Hilton declared a mistrial because she believed Don Orazietti thought she was biased.

McMillan said today that he's looking for hard evidence that there was something seriously wrong with Cipriano's trial.

"All that has happened is that she [Hilton] has expressed her reaction to her perception that Mr. Orazietti thinks she is biased," McMillan said. "And to that I say, so what?"

Assistant Crown Attorney Michael Varpio argued that Justice Hilton's decision is not reviewable by the Superior Court because she has a right to be wrong.

No justice of the peace is expected to be an expert on any subject or to possess any specialized knowledge, said Varpio.

He said that the Ontario Superior Court has no jurisdiction to reverse Hilton's decision.

The Crown had not asked for a mistrial, Varpio said, adding that the decision was solely and completely Hilton's.

"Mr. Wasyliniuk [local crown attorney at the time of the trial] was not suggesting, requesting or leading the justice of the peace to declare a mistrial," Varpio said. "The ideal prosecutor has a duty to stand and ask if the justice can continue."

At the time, Wasyliniuk had asked Hilton whether she thought she could continue under those circumstances.

Varpio argued that the heated exchanges between Orazietti and Hilton went beyond normal courtroom banter and disagreements.

"I feel that I've been baited and goaded," he quoted Hilton as saying during the trial.

Orazietti agreed that there were confrontations and contradictions for which he apologized to the court.

At the time of the trial, Orazietti also told the court he felt he had been abused but would not seek a mistrial because that would not be in the best interests of his client.

Hilton's decision to declare a mistrial was a dramatic and disproportionate response to the courtroom exchanges, Orazietti said.

"Declaring a mistrial should be a last resort," he said.

"The magistrate has declined to decide the case based on the evidence she has already heard," he said. "This court has jurisdiction."

Orazietti said he never made the accusation or even implied that Hilton was biased.

"If you can show me something here where Mr. Orazietti conducted himself so outrageously to undermine the merit of the case, I'd be interested," McMillan said to Varpio today. "Whether or not they like each other is irrelevant."

McMillan told Varpio that, if the justice had said she were biased, then he would be convinced that the mistrial was justified.

But she did not say that, nor did she demonstrate it.

"Is this anything more than the bruised ego of the court and of Mr. Orazietti equally?" McMillan asked.

As reported earlier by SooToday.com, Orazietti asked the Superior Court of Justice to force Hilton to complete the Cipriano trial or to render a decision based on the transcripts and evidence already presented.

"My point is that I shouldn't be in this position," Orazietti said today. "After a three-day trial, it's dismissed on a whim? I shouldn't be here."

McMillan said he will render a decision on the matter in short order and inform both parties when that decision is ready.

Earlier SooToday.com coverage of this story

Cipriano mistrial blamed on 'Orazaddi'-baiting Cipriano: 'I believe it was a clerical error' Court asked to force JP to continue Cipriano trial