Lawyer for 2018 Canada world junior player blames woman

LONDON, Ontario — An attorney for one of five hockey players charged with sexual assault suggested Tuesday that the woman who has accused them was the one to bring up calling other players into a hotel room in June 2018 because she wanted to have a “wild night.”

David Humphrey, who represents Michael McLeod, suggested during cross-examination that the woman, now 27, wanted to keep the night going after having sex with McLeod and discussed having some of his friends come to the room “to have some fun.”

“I’m going to suggest that Mr. McLeod asked you if you were serious and if that’s what you really wanted and that you said yes, it was,” Humphrey said.

“I don’t recall having any conversation about this, and then just feeling really surprised when people did walk in,” she replied, and later in response to a similar question said: “That doesn’t sound like anything I would usually say, and I don’t remember saying those words.”

Editor’s Picks

McLeod, Dillon Dube, Carter Hart, Cal Foote and Alex Formenton were charged with sexual assault last year for the incident that allegedly took place when they were in London, Ontario, for a Hockey Canada gala celebrating their championship at that year’s world junior tournament. McLeod is facing an additional charge of being a party to the offense of sexual assault.

All have pleaded not guilty. None is on an NHL roster or has an active contract with a team in the league.

The woman, who appeared via a video feed from another room in the courthouse, testified Monday that she was naked and scared when men started coming into the room. She described feeling “numb” and on “autopilot,” and like she had to go along with what the men wanted her to do. Prosecutors contend the players did what they wanted without taking steps to ensure she was voluntarily consenting to sexual acts.

The judge, Maria Carroccia, has told jurors they may use evidence related to the initial encounter with McLeod to assess the credibility of the complainant’s testimony about her “interest and level of participation” in what happened afterward, her ability to choose what activities to engage in and her level of intoxication.