LAKELAND, Alta — The second degree murder trial into the killings of Jacob Sansom, 39, and Maurice Cardinal, 57 that occurred near Glendon, Alta. in March of 2020, is wrapping up in an Edmonton courtroom this week.
Closing arguments were given on Monday by defense lawyers and Crown prosecutors on Monday.
The two men were found dead on a rural road in the Glendon area on March 28, 2020. The men had reportedly been out hunting earlier in the day in the Siebert Lake area, and then attended a residence in the Glendon area. Later in the night, the pair left in Sansom's vehicle.
Over the past two weeks, the jury has heard how an incident unfolded the evening of March 27, 2020, leading to the men being shot and killed, and a father and son later charged with second degree murder, in the days and months following the incident. The court heard how a vehicle reportedly slowed or stopped briefly in front of the Bilodeau residence that night. Roger Bilodeau, 58, and his teenage son Joseph, got in their vehicle and followed the other truck, being driven by Sansom. At times, the vehicles reached speeds of about 150km/hour on the rural road.
As the situation unfolded, Roger called his older son, Anthony Bilodeau, 33, who lived nearby, asking him to meet them and bring a gun for self-protection.
Anthony and Roger Bilodeau have been jointly charged with second degree murder, but claim shots were fired in self-defense.
Presenting closing arguments first was Anthony's defense lawyer, Brian Beresh.
"We are close to the end of this journey," said Beresh, as he spoke to the jury Monday morning.
Speaking specifically about Anthony, Beresh told the jurors he wanted only that they apply the same standards that they live by. He didn't ask for sympathy, prejudice or favour, just trust.
Beresh told jurors they may choose to look at the case as a puzzle. He also noted that people aren't punished for making mistakes, if there's no criminal intent. Beresh argued the Crown must prove that Anthony and Roger Bilodeau did not act in self-defense.
He noted that the night the incident unfolded, Anthony was sleep deprived from working long hours and it was clear that he was not prepared for what confronted him that night.
Beresh said Anthony believed there was force being used toward him and his family, that he acted to protect himself and his family, and that he acted in a reasonable way.
He asked jurors to put themselves in Anthony's shoes, adding, "We're not perfect. We all make mistakes."
Beresh also spoke to the lengthy response time that is often experienced in rural areas when residents call RCMP, and noted that Anthony had a limited amount of information when his father called asking him to join them and bring a gun for self-protection.
Beresh argued that he believed Cardinal "threw gas on the fire," and neither Sansom nor Cardinal were acting rationally that night. The defence's theory is that Cardinal had a gun and tried to shoot, but it malfunctioned, so he went back to the truck during the altercation to figure it out or reload it.
When considering Anthony's conduct after the shooting, which included destroying the gun used and taking lights off his vehicle, Beresh told the jury that not everyone reacts in the same way, after a traumatic event.
Roger's defence lawyer Shawn Gerstel also offered closing comments on Monday.
"Roger undoubtedly made mistakes," said Gerstel, but following someone in a vehicle doesn't make that person a murder, he added.
The entire situation unfolded over the course of about 10 minutes, said Gerstel, adding, Roger didn't have the benefit of hindsight. He too asked the jurors to put themselves into Roger's shoes, pointing to the prevalence of property crime in the area.
Gerstel said he believed "Mr. Sansom got out (of the vehicle) with the intention of fighting," and noted that both Sansom and Cardinal were proven to be intoxicated that night.
Speaking to when Roger decided to follow Sansom's vehicle, Gerstel said he didn't believe it was a "chase" since Roger did not try to stop Sansom's vehicle, and instead Roger stayed inside his vehicle throughout the incident. Sansom was the one who stopped first, and Roger did not block the other vehicle from leaving.
Gerstel also stated that if Roger had intended a violent encounter that night, he would have grabbed his own firearm as he left his residence, instead, he called Anthony and asked him to bring a gun to keep his family safe.
Gerstel stated that no matter what jurors may think of the choices Roger made that night, there should still be reasonable doubt. While Roger made mistakes, they were not criminal, said Gerstel.
Crown comments
On Monday afternoon, Crown prosecutor Jeff Rudiak offered his closing arguments to the jury. He described the situation as "a case of tragic results."
Rudiak said two "innocent men" had no business dying the night the incident unfolded. All Sansom and Cardinal did was pull into the Bilodeau driveway.
Rudiak said the Crown believes it is a case of the Bilodeaus taking the law into their own hands, and the killings are in no way justified.
The Crown believes it is clear Anthony shot both Sansom and Cardinal, and it is clear that the act of shooting the men caused their deaths.
Prosecutors also believes there was murderous intent, as Anthony knew the damage that shooting at the men would cause. When Anthony shot at Jacob, he was shooting to kill, said Rudiak.
"They're all kill shots," he added.
Rudiak argued there is ample evidence to disprove self-defense. He referred to a portion of Roger's statement were he recalled telling Anthony that he was "chasing them down our road." Rudiak noted that Roger was the one who instigated the chase, and he is the one who called for a gun.
Rudiak also argued that when Anthony arrived to the scene, there was no force being used at the time, the situation was likely deescalating, and it was Anthony arriving with a firearm that escalated the situation.
Even after Anthony shot Sansom, there was an opportunity to leave the scene, but instead he chose to shoot Cardinal too, said Rudiak.
Rudiak also spoke about the "after effect," where the Bilodeau men left the scene and did not call police. Anthony also destroyed the weapon and brought it to a dump. The Crown believes this proves they knew they committed an unlawful act.
"You do not have to introduce a gun to a fist fight," said Rudiak. "It was Anthony who introduced a gun to a fist fight."
Rudiak also noted that Anthony could have told his dad to stop following the vehicle. He also didn't have to get the gun, or leave the truck with the gun in his hands. Anthony could have been the "voice of reason," said Rudiak. Instead, "It was he who covered this up."
Speaking to Sansom's background in mixed martial arts, Rudiak noted it had no relevance to the situation, since the men were not known to each other.
When speaking to the fact that Sansom and Cardinal were intoxicated, Rudiak also believed it wasn't relevant to how the situation unfolded. The men left the previous residence they were at when asked, and their rowdiness had not been described as being violent.
Rudiak asked what was worse - that Sansom and Cardinal were intoxicated, or that Anthony and Roger Bilodeau were sober when they acted. No injuries were reported by Anthony, Roger, or 16-year-old Joseph Bilodeau.
"Roger could have stopped this at any time," said Rudiak, adding, "He wasn't threatened at all when he was chasing."
The jury will begin deliberating at 9 a.m. on Tuesday.
