There was no shouting, no protest, no sharp declaration of unfairness or illegality.

Xiu Jin Teng, 41, remained completely silent as a jury found her guilty of the first-degree murder of her husband Dong Huang after a bizarre trial in which she represented herself.

On Friday, she will receive the mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

After the jury, which deliberated for six hours Wednesday, was dismissed, Teng had a brief conversation with the lawyer appointed by the court to protect her rights, packed her paperwork into a large plastic bag, and smiled serenely as she was handcuffed and led out of the courtroom.

Her mind is likely already on the next stage of the legal process: appealing the verdict and the various rulings she repeatedly and loudly denounced as unfair, illegal and a violation of her rights.

Teng was accused of using a ligature to strangle her husband Dong Huang and hiding his body, wrapped in plastic and doused in bleach, in a closet in their Scarborough basement apartment in February 2012.

The Crown alleged she intended to collect up to $2 million in life insurance.

Huang’s body was discovered by Teng’s landlords before it could be disposed of using various items Teng purchased from Canadian Tire, prosecutor Joshua Levy told the jury.

The unusual trial which began in November proceeded in fits and starts as Teng harangued Justice Ian MacDonnell over his refusal to toss out her charge due to delay, demanded a defence lawyer and accused the court and Crown of “illegal” behaviour.

The jury was not told why Teng did not have a defence lawyer, although MacDonnell did tell the jury her frequent claim that she was being denied a lawyer was simply not true.

Outside the jury’s presence, court heard that Teng fired her first lawyer after several months and, after going through three more lawyers, switched to lawyer Devin Bains in 2013.

Her trial was initially set to begin in September 2015. Just before it began, Bains informed the court that, after consulting senior counsel at the Law Society of Upper Canada, he needed to be removed due to a breakdown in his relationship with Teng.

Teng maintained to the court she wanted him to continue as her lawyer.

Arrangements were made for another lawyer to take over and for the trial to proceed in November, but Teng refused this.

The next available date for a trial was at the end of October 2016.

Teng still would not hire a new publicly-funded lawyer despite the urging of the court, altthough she did speak to several.

Eventually, the Ministry of the Attorney General filed materials indicating that, should she hire a lawyer, they would oppose an application for funding, as that would “reward” her efforts to abuse the system.

Before the trial began, Teng tried to have her charges stayed due to unreasonable delay, pointing out that it would be almost five years from her arrest in March 2012 to the end of her trial. (It has now been four years and 10 months.)

She cited the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent landmark decision, which set a 30-month time limit for cases to go from arrest to the end of trial in Superior Court, a ruling she’d heard about from a fellow inmate.

Teng argued the delay has had serious consequences for her. One is that she has been unable to see her young daughter, who now lives in China with her husband’s family. If the criminal case had proceeded faster, the Children’s Aid Society might not have made that custody decision, she said.

Crown prosecutor Robert Fried argued Teng was trying to manipulate the court, after being responsible for the delays that came from changing her lawyers many times.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“The only thing that is unreasonable has been the conduct of Ms. Teng and her attempt to use her Charter right as a sword, not a shield,” he said.

MacDonnell did not stay the charge, finding that the long period of time was justified under the legal framework that existed prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling.

During the trial, Teng’s interruptions occasionally prompted MacDonnell to order she be removed from the courtroom and placed in a room with a video-link where she could see the proceedings, but not participate.

“You are wrong! You are wrong!” she yelled on one occasion. “You do everything illegally in this courtroom. You are an illegal judge.”

As MacDonnell continued to speak, she pretended to ignore him, while furiously making notes, then kept asking him to repeat himself because she couldn’t hear him.

On other occasions, she declared she was going to nap, sarcastically applauded and held up various objects to block her view of the judge who she sometimes addressed as “Your Majesty.”

Teng refused to inform the court of the witnesses she intended to call in her defence and why, and failed to produce any of the witnesses in court.

MacDonnell ruled as a result that they would proceed directly to closing arguments.

When Teng announced she needed time to prepare to apply for a mistrial, MacDonnell put his foot down.

“Ms. Teng that is enough,” he snapped. “It is hard to describe the number of things you have raised that have prevented this trial from proceeding in an orderly fashion. We are continuing with your jury address . . . . I am done playing games with you, Ms. Teng. I’m finished.”

Over two days, Teng urged the jury to acquit her, claiming there are many holes in the Crown’s theory, while referring to herself in the third person.

“It is much easier to kill a policy than to kill a person,” she said of the pricey life insurance policy the Crown argues was her motive for the murder.

Suddenly breaking into a singsong she said: “My dear jury. Have to. Acquit Ms. Teng.”

In his final instructions to the jury, the judge reminded them they could not take Teng’s behaviour in court, from her demands that the Crown be fired to her declaration that he is evil, into consideration.