If you ask Pink which of his cases stands out for him the most it’s that of John Alexander MacKenzie and the Beech Hill Road murders in Antigonish. He wrote a book chapter about this case and gives lectures on it at law schools. He even appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada in regards to the 1989 triple murder.

Pink expected a finding of manslaughter in the case. He got an acquittal.

MacKenzie had been bullied by three of his neighbours. John Boucher and brothers Edmund and Joseph Deon weren’t well-liked by many locals in Antigonish County. But the trio had a particular dislike for MacKenzie. The men threatened to blow up his mobile home, used his property as a dump and killed his pets — including his rooster.

At the tail end of a six-week drinking binge when the killings occurred, MacKenzie went to the men’s houses in the middle of the night, reloading his .22 calibre revolver as he went.

The next morning he confessed to the murders. But then, he wondered, what if he had just dreamed them? At trial, MacKenzie said his statement to police was a jumbled recounting of second-hand events blurred together by his drinking. A second, more detailed confession was excluded by the judge because it was made after MacKenzie had already asked for a lawyer.

Pink contended MacKenzie was provoked and was too drunk to recall the shootings. Though he anticipated guilt at a lesser charge, MacKenzie was acquitted by a jury of his peers. The acquittal was even upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“We didn’t expect the outcome,” says Pink, “but got the outcome.”

The Daily News reported that about 50 spectators applauded the April 20, 1990 decision. “Your job is much easier when public opinion is on your side,” Pink says.

Joel Pink’s account of the John Alexander MacKenzie trial appears in the 2014 book Tough Crimes: True Cases by Top Canadian Criminal Lawyers from Durvile Press. (indigo.ca)

But in Pink’s most infamous case, public opinion was not on his side.

The Nova Scotian public probably first heard the name ‘Joel Pink’ when he represented one of the young men accused of the Sydney River McDonald’s murders.

In May 1992, three would-be robbers expecting to pocket $200,000 from the restaurant left with just over $2,000. Three employees, Neil Burroughs, James Fagan and Donna Warren were murdered. Another, Arleen MacNeil, was left permanently disabled after being shot in the face.

Pink had been personally called at home by Darren Muise’s mother, crying and asking him to take her son’s case. He was uncertain at first whether or not he’d take it on. Pink’s firm at the time, Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales, also had concerns about a negative reaction to his taking the case. Cape Bretoners were outraged by the crime — especially that it had been committed by locals.

“It was terrible,” Pink says, “but these young boys were entitled to a defence.”

Darren Muise and Derek Wood were 18 years old at the time. Freeman MacNeil was 23. All three were charged in the crime.

Pink tried to get Muise’s trial moved, but was unsuccessful. When that didn’t work, he requested and received a judge-alone trial in Sydney, staying at a hotel under an assumed name for safety reasons.

The involvement of Pink’s client, Muise, had a particularly grim detail: he had slit the throat of McDonald’s employee Neil Burroughs, who had been already shot three times. The families called Muise a murderer. He proclaimed he had performed an act of mercy.

Joel Pink’s client, Darren Muise in 1992. (CTV News via screencap)

Though Muise came off as an unsympathetic character, according to Murder at McDonald’s by Phonse Jessome, Pink portrayed him as a young man who could still turn his life around. He mentioned how Muise cried during his interview with a forensic psychiatrist. How Muise’s girlfriend was getting ready for prom, while he was languishing in prison. None of this elicited sympathy from the gallery.

In one of the case’s most infamous moments, Pink was confronted in the court house dressing room by the mother of Arleen MacNeil. She asked him to come see her daughter.

But Pink couldn’t. He had to show solidarity with his client, though it doesn’t mean he was without sympathy.

“There shouldn’t be animosity between a victim’s family and defence counsel,” says Pink.

It’s a notion that makes sense on paper, but perhaps neglects to consider the root of where the animosity comes from.

The reason why families get mad at Pink and other defence lawyers is because their results benefit those who did them wrong. When their lawyers are successful, the accused can spend less time in jail or get charged with a lesser degree of crime that suggests a lesser degree of criminal intent. Or they can walk away free with a non-guilty verdict.

Pink says defending a tough case is similar to a doctor operating on a murderer, saving their life.

“They have to do it,” he says. “It’s their job. They’re not going to let the guy die.”

Muise ultimately made a bargain. He pleaded guilty to both the robbery and a charge of second-degree murder in the death of Burroughs.

Joel Pink and associate Heather MacKay speak to reporters during the sentencing hearing for Darren Muise in 1992. (Murder at McDonald’s ebook via screencap)

Pink told The Canadian Press at the time that even if they’d gone through a full four-week trial, the best they could have done was a conviction of second-degree murder. Muise was given a life sentence and no chance of parole for 20 years.

Following sentencing, Maclean’s magazine reported that Muise required a 20 officer escort out of the courtroom for his own protection. In a final soupcon of drama, Pink himself was led off Cape Breton Island with his own police escort.

“The other guys wanted to fight it,” Pink says. For their parts in the McDonald’s killings, MacNeil and Wood were found guilty of first-degree murder with no eligibility of parole for 25 years.

“We got 20 years — and my guy is the only one that’s out.”

Muise was granted full parole in 2012, and according to the Parole Board of Canada is living a “stable and financially secure” life in British Columbia.

“There shouldn’t be animosity between a victim’s family and defence counsel,” says Pink.