Crown asks Steven Wright how his DNA was found under Sweeney's fingernails

The Sudbury courthouse was spilling over with observers on Tuesday morning, as the Crown began its cross-examination of Steven Wright, at the Rene Sweeney murder trial.

The43-year-old is accused of stabbing Sweeney to death in an adult video store, when he was in high school.

Crown lawyer Robert Parsons spent the morning taking aim at Wright's memory of the events of Jan. 27, 1998. The Crown paid special attention to Wright's account of what happened in the short period of time he was inside the Adults Only Video store on Paris Street.

On Monday afternoon, Wright told the courtthat during that time, he was trying to see if Sweeneywas still breathing and if a pulse remained a skill, Wright said he learned during his days as a boy scout.

He said he used his right hand to shake Sweeney's shoulder and asked if she was OK.But ultimately, he said he could not detect anything, not breath, nor pulse or any movement.

Before adjourning for morning break, Parsons asked Wright if there was any movement in Sweeney's hand when he checked for a pulse, or if Sweeney ever lunged out at him while he was kneeling over her.

Wright told the jury Sweeney did not move.

'That's not how the law works'

Parsons then asked if Wright knew how his DNA was left behind underneath Sweeney's fingernails.

Wright told the court he couldn't specifically recall how it happened but said,"generally, it could have happened when I checked her pulse."

At that moment, defence lawyer Michael Lacy interjected and called the line of questions an inappropriate area of cross-examination.

When I disposed of them I was thinking. When I picked them up I wasn't thinking. Steven Wright, accused of murdering Rene Sweeney in 1998

Following the morning break, when the jury took their seats, Justice Robert Gordon instructed the jury that Wright wasn't obligated to provide an explanation for how his DNA was left behind, as it "creates a risk of shifting the burden of proof from the Crown to Wright, and that's not how the law works."

Parsons carried on with his cross-examination and zeroed in on Wright's memory of his hands and whether they were stained with blood from the video store.

Wright told the court his hands did not have blood on them when he left the store. Parsons noted the testimony of a young couple who had entered the store that day, and had said they didn't recall seeing blood on the perpetrator, as he fled from the store.

Discarding the teal jacket

Parsons then remarked how bloody the scene was and said, "I'm going to suggest that you did go to bathroom and you did clean up."

Wright told the court, "No I did not."

"And I'm going to suggest that you came out with clean hands," Parsons said.

"No Idid not," said Wright.

Parsons then asked Wright why he decided to grab his jacket and gloves (which are key pieces of evidence in the case)as he was running away from the video store.

I did not take anything from the store. Steven Wright, accused of murdering Rene Sweeney in 1998

Wright told Parsons it was because the itemsbelonged to him. Parsons then asked Wright why he then decided to discard the items in a wooded area near the crime scene.

"When I disposed of them I was thinking. When I picked them up I wasn't thinking," Wright said.

Parsons then suggested that Wright needed the jacket because he was "in the midst of committing a robbery."

Parsons said Wright needed the jacket because it concealed the magazines that were missing from the video store.

Wright said no, in response.

Parsons said, "but you have a clear, distinct memory of that not happening?"

"I did not take anything from the store," Wright said.

2nd witness

The court also heard from Catherine Yurich-Gratton, on Tuesday afternoon. She worked at the Lasalle location of the Adults Only Video store.

While she and Sweeney did not work at the same location, Yurich-Gratton said they were friendly and would talk to each other over the phone and goout together, on occasion.

She also told the court Sweeney had confided in her, a couple of times,that she felt she was being stalked. Specifically, that she was being followed home from work by someone. However, Yurich-Gratton said Sweeney never went into detail as to what exactly made her feel this way.

She was determined not to go down without a fight. An agreed statement of facts presented in court

Yurich-Gratton told the court she didn't think Sweeney was a paranoid person.

Justice Gordon also read a statement of fact regarding testimony given bySweeney's sister Kim, including that Rene would drive around her neighbourhood and home so that no one would know where she was going.

Adding to that, the statement of fact said that Kim also noticed that afterRenehad been murdered, her phone had several hung-up calls.Some of them were just a few days before the murder took place.

The statement of fact also read that according to Kim,Rene had takenup boxing because "she was determined not to go down without a fight."