In court: stereotypes and myths in the focus of the important process!

In court: stereotypes and myths in the focus of the important process!

Am Hart, Deutschland - In the past few weeks, the case around the Canadian ice hockey league and the severe allegations have made several players for high waves. On July 24, 2025, all defense teams came to their final statements, in which they brought various arguments to question the core of the indictment. According to nyTimes, several lawyers have critically highlighted the procedure of the public prosecutor's office.

David Humphrey, the lawyer of McLeod, accused the public prosecutor of manipulating evidence and distorting the time frame. In his opinion, crucial arguments were ignored if they did not fit into their own concept. Riaz Sayani, who represents hard, spoke in favor of alleged incorrect applications of the right, including the use of so-called trauma principles, which made a circular argument possible, which the public prosecutor turned into its favor.

topic: myths and stereotypes

Another point that was addressed in the courtroom was the risk of collecting myths and stereotypes into defense. Hilary Dudding, the lawyer of Formenton, pointed out urgently that such assumptions should be rejected. She asked the judge to accept the possibility that a woman could act mutually in such a environment without being described as a "bizarre" or "strange" person.

This aspect is also discussed in an article by [Ablawg] (https://ablawg.ca/2024/11/29/myths stereotypes-and-substantive- equality/), which illuminates the myths and stereotypes in the Canadian legal system. In the past, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of such beliefs, especially in the case of R V Lavallee, in which the myth was refuted that real victims of intimate partner always leave their perpetrators. This topic receives a new dimension through the current case, since false assumptions continue to be in the legal system.

The role of evidence

in the debate about the admissibility of evidence Stach Julianna Greenspan, who represents Foote. She criticized the public prosecutor sharply because she presented evidence that could not all be taken into account before the jury. In her opinion, a film that claimed that there was "no evidence of Callan Foote" was to be classified as illegal. Greenspan argued that this claim was introduced to influence public opinion.

In addition, the decision of the Supreme Court in the Kruk case illuminates the challenges that occur in the assessment of credibility and sexual assault. The Court accentuated that myths created specific legal protective measures for accused and pointed out that these claims do not promote equal treatment of victims of crime.