Mr. Rice has been retained by P in this case involving multiple drug and firearm offences. The police set up surveillance at P’s apartment building as a result of receiving information from a confidential informant that he and M were trafficking drugs. Based on further information gathered during ongoing surveillance the police arrested P at a shopping mall and found a wad of cash and some marihuana when they searched him. The police searched P’s cell phone and found that recent calls had been made to B and M. B was then detained by the police shortly after leaving the apartment building. The police searched B’s vehicle and located two bags containing a kilo of methamphetamine and a 9mm hand gun. Two search warrants were executed at P’s apartment and M’s residence where the police found various quantities of cocaine, drug paraphernalia and a large amount of cash. A trial date has not been set.
Mr. Rice has been retained by one of the three defendants in this homicide case involving charges of second degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence and assault with a weapon. A motor vehicle with five occupants pulled into a strip mall at night and stopped in a secluded parking lot. D was in the backseat with his girlfriend. Another girl was in the front passenger seat. Two masked men armed with handguns and carrying baseball bats got out of a vehicle that stopped behind them. The girl in the front fled when the masked men closed in, opened the driver’s side rear door and began assaulting D with the bats. D was then fatally shot in the chest. The vehicle sped away from the scene to a condominium parking lot where D’s body was dropped on the pavement near a garbage bin shelter. The vehicle then disappeared into the night. The media reported that the shooting was fuelled by a drug debt. A date for a preliminary inquiry has not been set.
In this conspiracy to commit murder case, Mr. Rice acted for B who was alleged to be the trigger man in retribution for the previous shooting of C on the sidewalk outside an Edmonton restaurant. The police obtained a wiretap authorization to intercept the telephone calls of C. B was caught on the wire. During the preliminary inquiry, one of the detectives conceded under cross examination by Mr. Rice that the Edmonton Police Service had extensive records about B and his association with C. It became clear that B ought to have been named as a known person in the wiretap authorization under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code as the interception of his private communications would have assisted the investigation. Faced with a flawed case, the Crown Attorney offered a sweetheart deal whereby B pleaded guilty to a firearm offence, was sentenced to time in custody and immediately released from pretrial detention. All other charges were withdrawn.