A recent homicide trial in Hamilton Superior Court ended with two very different outcomes for the accused individuals involved. After a seven-week jury trial, one accused was convicted of first-degree murder, while the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict for the second accused. Hicks Adams represented the second accused, whose case resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial.
Cases involving multiple accused can often produce complex and unpredictable outcomes for juries. Even when the allegations arise from the same incident and the same evidence is presented at trial, jurors may reach different conclusions about the role and responsibility of each individual.
The Hamilton case demonstrates how the criminal justice system addresses situations in which unanimity cannot be achieved.
A Fatal Shooting Inside a Hamilton Shisha Bar
The case centred on the fatal shooting of Ali Ghorbani, who was killed in the early morning hours of November 14, 2021, inside a Hamilton shisha bar on Upper Ottawa Street.
According to the evidence presented at trial, Ghorbani was shot 14 times inside a small washroom at the establishment shortly after 2 a.m. Investigators determined that three firearms were used during the shooting, including Ghorbani’s own weapon.
Two men, Jagar Hasan and Karzan Kakamad, were charged in connection with the killing. The Crown’s theory of the case was that the two accused lured Ghorbani into the washroom and carried out an ambush-style attack. Prosecutors suggested the confrontation may have been connected to drugs and argued that the shooting was effectively an execution. Both accused pleaded not guilty and testified in their own defence.
Accused Presented Different Defence Positions at Trial
During the trial, the two accused presented different accounts of what occurred inside the washroom.
Jagar Hasan testified that he shot Ghorbani in self-defence. According to his testimony, Ghorbani pulled out a firearm and accused Hasan of being someone he had previously encountered in jail. Hasan said he fired four shots after believing his life was in danger. However, the jury ultimately rejected this explanation.
Defence counsel for the second accused, Karzan Kakamad, maintained that he was not involved in the shooting. Kakamad testified that he was unarmed and hid inside a washroom stall when the gunfire erupted.
He further claimed that two friends of the victim entered the washroom during the confrontation and that one of them, Sheydon Storer, accidentally shot Ghorbani through the wall of the stall. Storer could not testify at trial because he was killed roughly a month after the incident.
The Crown disputed this version of events and argued that only the two accused and the victim were present in the washroom at the time of the shooting.
Jury Hung on One Accused; First-Degree Murder Conviction on the Other
After a lengthy trial that lasted approximately seven weeks, the case was handed to the jury for deliberation. Within two days, the jury informed the court that they had reached a decision regarding one of the accused but were unable to agree on a verdict for the other. The judge instructed them to continue deliberating in an attempt to reach unanimity.
Later that day, the jury returned with its final decisions. The jury convicted Jagar Hasan of first-degree murder in connection with the death of Ali Ghorbani.
However, jurors remained unable to reach a verdict on the second accused, Karzan Kakamad. Because a criminal jury must reach a unanimous verdict, the deadlock resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial in relation to Kakamad.
What Is a Hung Jury?
In Canadian criminal trials, jury verdicts must be unanimous. All twelve jurors must agree on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of each charge. When jurors deliberate but cannot reach a unanimous agreement, the situation is known as a “hung jury”.
In such circumstances, the trial judge may determine that further deliberation will not resolve the impasse. The judge may then declare a mistrial, meaning that the trial ends without a verdict.
Importantly, a hung jury does not determine guilt or innocence. It simply means that the jury could not reach the level of certainty required by law.
What Happens After a Mistrial?
When a mistrial occurs because of a hung jury, the prosecution must decide whether to proceed with a new trial.
The Crown may consider several factors when making that decision, including:
- The strength of the evidence presented at the first trial
- The seriousness of the alleged offence
- The likelihood that a second jury could reach a verdict
- The impact on witnesses and victims
If prosecutors believe there is still a reasonable prospect of conviction and that proceeding is in the public interest, they may seek to retry the accused. However, the Crown may also decide not to pursue further proceedings in some circumstances. Until a decision is made, the charges technically remain unresolved.
How Murder Trials Work in Ontario
First-degree murder is one of the most serious offences under Canadian criminal law. These cases are typically tried before a judge and jury in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
At trial, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused the victim’s death and that the killing was both planned and deliberate, or occurred in circumstances that qualify as first-degree murder under the Criminal Code.
Because of the seriousness of the allegation, the trial process can be lengthy and complex. Murder trials often involve weeks of testimony, forensic evidence, expert witnesses, and extensive cross-examination by defence counsel.
Why Jury Deadlocks Occur
Hung juries are relatively rare but can occur in complex or high-stakes criminal trials.
There are several reasons why jurors may be unable to reach a unanimous decision. Sometimes jurors interpret evidence differently. Witness testimony may conflict, forensic evidence may raise unanswered questions, or jurors may disagree about whether the Crown has met the high burden of proof required in criminal cases.
The standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is intentionally strict. If even one juror believes the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt, they cannot vote to convict. In those circumstances, the jury may become deadlocked.
This safeguard is designed to protect individuals from wrongful convictions and to ensure that criminal guilt is established only when the evidence is sufficiently compelling.
Different Outcomes for Co-Accused
The Hamilton case also highlights an important feature of criminal jury trials: jurors evaluate the case against each accused separately. Even when multiple individuals are charged in connection with the same incident, the jury must assess the evidence relating to each person individually.
In some cases, this can lead to different outcomes for co-accused individuals, including convictions for some accused and acquittals or mistrials for others.
Contact Hicks Adams for Top-Tier Criminal Defence Services in Toronto
Serious criminal allegations such as murder charges carry significant legal consequences and often involve complex factual and legal issues. As demonstrated by our firm’s representation in the Kakamad case, it is essential to have experienced defence counsel who can carefully analyze the evidence, challenge weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and present a strong defence strategy.
If you or someone you know is facing serious criminal charges in Toronto or elsewhere in Ontario, contact Hicks Adams for leading criminal defence advocacy. Seeking legal advice as early as possible can be an important step in protecting your rights. Reach out online or call 416-975-1700 today to book a confidential consultation in your criminal law matter.
