Louis Riel Trial
Trial Package Questions (pg. 145-154)
- Riel was accused of high treason, what does this mean?
- Compare the strategy of the Crown to Defence.
- Why would Riel object to the insanity plea?
- Explain the jury's decision & subsequent actions of the court and counsel.
- What aspects of the trial question the notion of fairness?
- How did Riel's death impact future events in the Northwest & Canada at large?
- What is Riel's legacy?
"Keep it Riel"
Know the strategies to determine witnesses...
Crown Strategy:
The job of the lawyers for the Crown counsel is to show that Louis Riel personally committed treasonable acts at Duck Lake, Fish Creek, and Batoche; that he conspired with Chief Big Bear to commit treason, resulting in the use of violence at Frog Lake, Fort Pitt, Red Deer Creek and Loon Lake; and that he conspired with Chief Pound-maker to commit treason, resulting in the use of force or violence at Battleford and Cut Knife Hill. The burden of proof rests on the Crown, and in order to gain a conviction, the Crown must show beyond a reasonable doubt that Riel was in fact guilty.
In your questioning of the witnesses Crown should bring out details of the extensive suffering, loss of life and damage to property caused by the rebellion, show that Riel had overall responsibility for the uprising, and convince the jury that he must be punished for his treasonable acts. Crown should demonstrate that the rebellion was completely unjustified -the Metis grievances were relatively minor, and in any case the government had already responded (or was about to respond) to their complaints. Riel used these grievances to provoke an uprising in order to advance his private interests. If the defence tries to prove that Riel was insane at the time of the rebellion, Crown should do everything possible to prove that he was sane and accountable for his acts.
In your questioning of the witnesses Crown should bring out details of the extensive suffering, loss of life and damage to property caused by the rebellion, show that Riel had overall responsibility for the uprising, and convince the jury that he must be punished for his treasonable acts. Crown should demonstrate that the rebellion was completely unjustified -the Metis grievances were relatively minor, and in any case the government had already responded (or was about to respond) to their complaints. Riel used these grievances to provoke an uprising in order to advance his private interests. If the defence tries to prove that Riel was insane at the time of the rebellion, Crown should do everything possible to prove that he was sane and accountable for his acts.
Defence Strategy:
The job of the lawyers for the defence (the defence counsel) is to show that Louis Riel did not commit treasonable acts. Defence might argue along the following lines:
The people of the North West had many grievances. Prior to the rebellion they had exhausted every legal method of protest available to them, without success. Riel returned to the North West at their request and sent one last, major petition to the government on their behalf. The government was thus well aware of the problems facing the people; by failing again to take significant action they forced the Metis to rebel.
Riel did not intend to overthrow the government of Canada. He simply wished to improve conditions for the people in the North West. When he saw that stronger methods of protest were needed, he planned to repeat the nearly bloodless tactics he had used in the Red River area in 1869-70. That is, he planned to set up a provisional government, seize arms and supplies, take hostages, and negotiate a settlement with Ottawa. Even at Duck Lake, his followers fought only after the police had fired the first shot. The battles of Duck Lake, Fish Creek and Batoche, and those which involved the First Nations, were uprisings of a local nature and did not amount to acts of treason. Riel himself did everything he could to reduce the bloodshed involved and he encouraged Chiefs Big Bear and Poundmaker to do the same.
Many people felt that Riel was insane at the time of the rebellion and hence not accountable for his acts. Riel objected strongly to his argument at his trial in 1885.
The people of the North West had many grievances. Prior to the rebellion they had exhausted every legal method of protest available to them, without success. Riel returned to the North West at their request and sent one last, major petition to the government on their behalf. The government was thus well aware of the problems facing the people; by failing again to take significant action they forced the Metis to rebel.
Riel did not intend to overthrow the government of Canada. He simply wished to improve conditions for the people in the North West. When he saw that stronger methods of protest were needed, he planned to repeat the nearly bloodless tactics he had used in the Red River area in 1869-70. That is, he planned to set up a provisional government, seize arms and supplies, take hostages, and negotiate a settlement with Ottawa. Even at Duck Lake, his followers fought only after the police had fired the first shot. The battles of Duck Lake, Fish Creek and Batoche, and those which involved the First Nations, were uprisings of a local nature and did not amount to acts of treason. Riel himself did everything he could to reduce the bloodshed involved and he encouraged Chiefs Big Bear and Poundmaker to do the same.
Many people felt that Riel was insane at the time of the rebellion and hence not accountable for his acts. Riel objected strongly to his argument at his trial in 1885.
In Depth Character Report
-this will be assigned when we begin the Louis Riel Trial Package
-pick a person to learn more about & introduce them to the class with key information (individual activity)
-pick a person to learn more about & introduce them to the class with key information (individual activity)