Corroboration and Vetrovec Warnings

This Evidence Law Capsule explores how the law on corroboration is applied in criminal cases in Canada. What is a Vetrovec warning? When is one given? This is Part 3 in a series on corroboration. If you are not familiar with the concept, please watch Part 1 (Corroboration Overview), which provides an overview and explanation of the different ways in which corroboration is relevant in criminal and civil trials.
To learn more about the criminal law and evidence, check out my website: petersankoff.com
To be notified about new videos, Like my Facebook page: / professorsankoff
Or follow me on twitter: @petersankoff

[@kitnkabootles]

This helped me so much ty!

[@professorsankoff7683]

You are super welcome!!

[@kitnkabootles]

@@professorsankoff7683 I'm curious to know what you think of the upcoming SCC appeal R v Randy Riley.
A Crown witness was a co-accused who had placed the blame solely on Riley's shoulders during his own trial in which he was convicted on 1st degree. During Riley's trial he turned against the Crown and took full blame for the crime. It was at this point that the judge gave a mid-trial Vetrovec warning.
Given that the Crown witness proved adverse to the Crown, would this Vetrovec warning go against the principle that only Crown witnesses should be given the warning?

[@professorsankoff7683]

@@kitnkabootles It's a really interesting case that I just had a look at. For sure, it could alter the law in this area, depending on what the SCC does. It would not totally undermine the principle you cite either way, as it was still a Crown witness, but it will likely develop the law on "mixed witnesses", which remains murky.