Judge Rules McSorley Is Guilty

Former Boston Bruin defenseman Marty McSorley was found guilty of criminal assault Friday for slamming his hockey stick into an opponent’s head. Provincial Court Judge William Kitchen said he didn’t believe McSorley’s claim that he had been aiming for Donald Brashear’s shoulder, but missed.

“A child swinging at a tee-ball would not miss. A housekeeper swinging a carpet beater would not miss. An NHL player would never, ever miss. Brashear was struck as intended,” Kitchen said in his ruling, which also took aim at the level of violence tolerated as “an unwritten code of conduct” in the game of hockey.

McSorley escaped a criminal conviction, however, when the judge granted him a conditional discharge--a provision in Canadian law that allows defendants to be found guilty but escape an official conviction or criminal record. He imposed no sentence, but prohibited McSorley from engaging in any game over the next 18 months in which Brashear is an opponent.

McSorley’s lawyers, describing him as “disappointed” with the verdict, said he would consider an appeal.

“Everybody must understand that this sort of violence is not to be tolerated, either on the street or in the hockey arena,” said Kitchen, while conceding that testimony from players, coaches and referees during the five-day trial showed the game long has accepted a certain level of violence played outside the rules. “The written rules are not realistic. The penalties do not deter,” the judge said. “There is work to be done.”

McSorley stood quietly before the court at sentencing, hands clasped behind his back. He claimed he had never intended to injure Brashear when he swung at him with his stick during the last three seconds of a Feb. 21 game between the Bruins and the Vancouver Canucks--landing a blow that left Brashear convulsing with a third-degree concussion.

“I played the game for a long time. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the game. I believe it’s a tremendous privilege to play in the NHL because of the people in the NHL,” McSorley told the court.

“I’m extremely glad to see Donald back on the ice,” McSorley added, “and I do plan to address this with [him] in person.”

In his earlier testimony, McSorley--a 17-year NHL veteran and one of the league’s premier enforcers--said he had been ordered back onto the ice during the last 20 seconds of the game to take on Brashear, who repeatedly had taunted the Bruins’ bench and inadvertently injured their goalie.

McSorley said he had intended to slash the brawny Vancouver player on the shoulder near his jersey number. But Brashear’s sudden movement, combined with an earlier injury to McSorley’s wrist that made his aim imprecise, made him miss and clip Brashear on the head, he said. McSorley said he wasn’t even aware Brashear had been injured, and was expecting him to get up and fight.

But Kitchen, while saying most of McSorley’s testimony “appeared to be sincere,” concluded that his account of the attack was not accurate.

Far from being rushed as he tried to engage Brashear before the clock wound down, McSorley obviously “took his time” in skating after him.

“The act was unpremeditated. It was impulsive,” Kitchen continued. “Although the criminal intent was momentary, the results were drastic. It is clear that he regrets this incident and is remorseful. He has not been able to admit his guilt to himself, but that is understandable.”

In granting a conditional discharge, the judge took note that Brashear--who is unable to remember the incident but has otherwise recovered--did not appear inclined to pursue the case. “My conclusion is Mr. Brashear simply wants to forget the matter. What the court does is almost irrelevant to him,” Kitchen said. “I had the impression he didn’t like me very much.”

Brashear issued a statement through the Canucks. “The court in Vancouver has made its decision and it’s time to move on now,” he said. “I’d like to thank everyone for their support, especially my family and my teammates. It’s time to concentrate on the season.”

After the hearing, McSorley walked without comment out of the courthouse, stopping only to sign a few autographs and give a young fan a nudge on the shoulder and a wink.

One of his lawyers, Paul Kelly, said McSorley probably would appeal the finding of guilt, although he conceded that appeals “on the facts” are difficult.

He also said that McSorley--who became a free agent after his suspension from the Bruins for the remainder of last season--would likely seek a hearing for reinstatement to the league with Commissioner Gary Bettman.

Bettman said McSorley remains “suspended indefinitely” pending a reinstatement hearing.

“The court today said that its focus was solely on the charge against Mr. McSorley. This was not a trial of the game or the NHL,” the commissioner said in a statement. “Clearly, the incident was not representative of NHL hockey or NHL players. While the court’s decision today brings closure to this aspect of the incident, it does not alter our position that we will continue to punish severely acts of inappropriate conduct in our game.”

However, the judge made several comments critical of the level of violence in the game, at one point noting that bringing McSorley on trial could send a message. “If the game is to become less violent, it will most likely be in response to pressure brought by the fans,” he said.

The judge took particular note of testimony from players and coaches that violence is outlawed by the rules but is nonetheless an integral and accepted part of the game.

The game’s written rules “are only part of the picture,” the judge said in his ruling. “There is also an unwritten code of conduct, agreed to by the players and officials. . . . For example, the written rules prohibit slashing with the stick, but the unwritten code says that slashing is permissible as long as it is during play and not to the head.”

In this case, Kitchen said, “My only concern is whether Marty McSorley is guilty of the specific charge alleged against him.”

But he emphasized that limitation “is not to say that the McSorley/Brashear incident should not prompt a healthy discussion of hockey and the role of violence in the sport. If this is a trial of the game of hockey, the judge and jury are the Canadian public.”

*

WAKE-UP CALL

The NHL has not done enough to deter violent acts, so court decision was much needed, writes Helene Elliott. D12

ANGRY REACTION

Many players are shocked by the verdict and believe it could lead to a less physical style of play in the future. D12

CASE FILE

NHL incidents that have landed in court. D12