Criminology: Legal Defenses Available to Lesley Oswald Case Study

This report examines the legal defenses available to Lesley Oswald, accused in the assassination of the Prime Minister of Canada, which mirrors the case of Lee Harvey Oswald. It explores the defense of entrapment, arguing that Oswald may have been framed or instigated. The report also analyzes the defense of automatism, considering Oswald's potential mental state and schizoid personality. Additionally, it discusses the defense of threat of force, citing Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The analysis references the facts of the case, witness testimonies, and the findings of the Committee on Assassination to provide a comprehensive overview of the potential legal strategies that could be employed. The report provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the case, focusing on the intricacies of the defense strategies available to the accused.

Running head: CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINOLOGY
Defence Strategies available to Lesley Oswald
Introduction: The Facts of the Case
The 23rd Prime Minister of Canada was recently assassinated at
Toronto on 10 January 2019 at around 12.30 pm, while he was waving and
passing through a large enthusiastic crowd; a 10 mile motorcade in an
open top convertible. A former Royal Canadian Navy officer, Lesley
Oswald from Regina was accused for the assassination. It was alleged that
Lesley Oswald shot the Prime Minister while his vehicle was passing
through the Toronto School Book Depository Building at 12:30 p.m. It was
subsequently argued that Lesley Oswald was the prime suspect for he was
a stark Marxist, a withdrawn misanthrope and there were substantial
evidences against him. The following defences could be presented to
defend the accused:
Defences available to Lesley Oswald
1. Entrapment
The defence of entrapment can be claimed by a person when the
authority makes a person commit an offence without having a bona fide
inquiry. The burden of proof is on Oswald to defend himself that he has
been a victim of entrapment ("Entrapment - Criminal Law Notebook", 2019). The
investigators appointed by the Commission (set up on account of the
assassination) enquired from several eyewitnesses who claimed that the
shot that killed the Prime Minister came from the grassy hill, which was
situated in front of the vehicle, more precisely to the right of the
motorcade. However, Oswald was at the Toronto School Book Depository

2CRIMINOLOGY
Building, which was situated behind the motorcade. It was debated that
there had to be a second gunman who shot the Prime Minister, yet no
other person was arrested or could be even identified; hence the second
gunman theory was dismissed later on. The Committee on Assassination
held that the assassination of the Prime Minister was a ‘result of a
conspiracy'. It could be argued in defence that Oswald was framed and
entrapped for a crime committed by someone else. It could also be
argued that Oswald has not acted alone in this matter and was inspired,
instigated or supported by some other source or authority.
2. Automatism
A defence of non-insane automatism is available under common
law, which is referred to as ‘a state of impaired consciousness’. The
mental disorder automatism results to a finding of ‘not criminally
automatism’ while the non-mental type results in acquittal ("Automatism -
Criminal Law Notebook", 2019). It can be argued that Oswald was diagnosed as
a schizoid personality. Several psychiatrists and social workers have
interviewed Oswald in New York previously and were convinced that he
had potential for violence. Reynolds Hartogs, a psychiatrist who
interviewed Oswald had recorded his personality pattern disturbance,
which showed schizoid as well as passive aggressive tendencies. Vincent
Bark in his book wrote that an accused who showed ‘delusions of
grandeur’ should be given the benefit of doubt for being mentally
unstable (Bugliosi, 2008). Therefore, Oswald could use the defence of non-
insane automatism.

3CRIMINOLOGY
3. Defence of use of threat of force
The defence of use of threat of force is a kind of justification. On raising this defence,
the Crown pushes boundaries to hold the unavailability of this defence, which is a codified
defence under the Criminal Code of Canada ("Self-Defence and Defence of Another -
Criminal Law Notebook", 2019). The Criminal Code of Canada would allow Oswald to cite
the defence of external threat of force, which instigated him to assassinate the Prime Minister.
Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that a person would not be held guilty if it
is believed that he was being forced or threatened by someone of high authority in The Royal
Canadian Navy (RCN). The act of the person to defend himself would be considered as
reasonable under such circumstances.

4CRIMINOLOGY
References
Automatism - Criminal Law Notebook. (2019). Retrieved from
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Automatism
Entrapment - Criminal Law Notebook. (2019). Retrieved from
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Entrapment
Self-Defence and Defence of Another - Criminal Law Notebook. (2019). Retrieved from
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another
The Criminal Code of Canada