Hockey Canada trial: Lawyer for Michael McLeod challenges complainant's choices and memory in sexual assault trial

The trial of five former players of Canada's 2018 World Junior Championship squad, including now-former NHL player Michael McLeod, escalated into a contentious phase on Tuesday as defense counsel David Humphrey resumed his cross-examination of the complainant. The female complainant, identified only by the initials E.M. for reasons of a court-ordered publication ban, claims she was sexually assaulted inside a London, Ontario hotel room following a Hockey Canada gala last June. Michael McLeod, along with Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, and Cal Foote, have entered not guilty pleas to one charge of sexual assault. Michael McLeod has a second charge of sexual assault as a party to the offence. David Humphrey, acting for Michael McLeod, concentrated considerably on E.M.'s memory of that night's events—specifically at Jack's Bar, where she met McLeod and other players. Humphrey alluded to a man, Matt Maccarone, a bar customer and support figure; a police detective had testified earlier about a man who had talked favorably about McLeod. Asked if he had heard anything concerning McLeod being ‘an elite player’, E.M. said she had not, remembering instead that Maccarone had characterized him as "a good guy" who had money. Security video from the nightclub dance floor was shown during the session, with Humphrey pointing out frames where E.M. seems to put her hand on McLeod's crotch voluntarily. Although E.M. admitted to that incident, she maintained that team members had manipulated her hand in similar manners throughout the evening, making it difficult for her to know what she was consenting to. “They made it seem like it was fine, and with the amount I had to drink, I thought I’d go along with it. I thought maybe I should feel flattered and not question it too much.” said E.M. Humphrey asked further why E.M. didn't leave the bar or McLeod, to which she replied, “I've always had a hard time saying no to people.”Additional attention was paid to two video recordings inside the hotel room, at 3:25 a.m. and 4:26 a.m., during which E.M. can be heard stating that the acts were consensual. Humphrey relied on this evidence to challenge her credibility, but E.M. insisted that her consent then was influenced by pressure and alcohol consumption, claiming McLeod only sought verbal confirmation at the point of filming. “I didn't feel like I had a choice," she reaffirmed in testimony, describing the tone of the evening changed significantly after the videos. Asked about her earlier assertions regarding ‘rude’ conduct, she testified McLeod uttered a dismissive comment: “Are you leaving anytime soon?”Daniel Brown, the third lawyer to cross-examine E.M., alternated between playing video clips of the night of June 18, 2018, at Jack's pub, and copies of her statements to police days later and to Hockey Canada as part of a separate investigation in 2022 during ongoing cross-examination of E.M..Also read: The jury saw the surveillance footage of hockey players from the 2018 Hockey Canada sexual assault scandalHumphrey finished up his cross-examination by challenging the complainant's romantic involvement at the time, inferring that she acted out of guilt feelings over having cheated on her boyfriend. The case will continue next Wednesday with further defense counsel lined up to start cross-examinations of the complainant again.