Open Letter to the Crown Attorneys: Justice for Samuel Lucas Graham Jr.
Introduction
The following is a letter sent to Crown Attorneys Mat and Heidi regarding the January 30, 2026 verdict in the death of Samuel Lucas Graham Jr.
This letter addresses concerns about the acquittal on first-degree murder and urges immediate consideration of an appeal before the closing of the appeal window in early March 2026.
Sidebar Summary
What This Letter Demands
This open letter urges the Crown Attorneys to formally review and appeal the January 30, 2026 verdict that acquitted the accused of first-degree murder in the death of Samuel Lucas Graham Jr.
Key Issues Raised:
• Two deliberate, forceful stab wounds indicating intent
• Text messages stating “I’m going to kill Sam — today’s the day”
• Rejected and inconsistent testimony
• No evidence of intoxication
• Lack of remorse following the killing
• Statements suggesting awareness of potential manslaughter charges
• Additional documented history supporting premeditation
Critical Deadline
The appeal window closes approximately March 1, 2026.
A written response is formally requested by February 17, 2026.
Legal Rights Invoked
The letter formally references:
- Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
- Ontario Victims’ Bill of Rights
- Crown Prosecution Manual D.36
Specifically citing the right of victims to:
- Convey their views
- Have those views considered
- Receive information about proceedings
- File a complaint if rights are infringed
Core Position
The family maintains this was not an accident.
They assert the evidence demonstrates planning, intent, and premeditation.
They are demanding transparency, accountability, and real consideration — not silence.
The contents below remain exactly as written.
The Letter
Dear Crown Attorneys Mat and Heidi,
My previous email dated Feb 01, and Feb 05 urged an appeal of the January 30, 2026, verdict (acquittal on first-degree murder). No response has been received.
Over 5 years, a clear pattern exists: I have repeatedly conveyed views, evidence, and concerns in discussions/emails, yet not once has any of my contributions been considered or reflected in decisions. This goes beyond non-communication—it’s a complete failure to consider victim input, disrespecting my rights and prolonging our pain. The appeal window closes ~March 1, 2026. Grounds for appeal are overwhelmingly strong for first-degree murder, directly countering the judge’s flawed assessment of no specific intent. Key evidence includes:
Two Stab Wounds Indicating Greater Intent and Force
Forensic reports and testimony confirm two deliberate, forceful stabs (one piercing the spine front-to-back, another through the arm hitting bone and severing muscle). This occurred in close pursuit, with Montana chasing Sammy and Semiah, stabbing face-to-face as Sammy tried to block—aligning with premeditation, not a single unintended act. Sammy died almost instantly from massive blood loss.
Premeditation via Texts
Montana’s messages (e.g., “I’m going to kill Sam — today’s the day”) and luring texts to bring them back to the house show planning and vengeful intent. Well at the same tiem telling his friend he is going to kill Sammy. These are facts we all no all documented as truth.
Testimony Inconsistencies and Lies
Montana’s accounts and stores were rejected as not credible (e.g., self-defense claims), yet the judge selectively accepted uncorroborated parts. And know perjury charges and the lies stacked up lie after lie. But of course, nothing.
Semiah’s consistent, credible testimony contradicts this—Montana lied in front of the court about key events.
Absolutely No Evidence of Intoxication
No corroboration from any officer, jail guards, Montana himself that day, Semiah, or tests—directly undermining the judge’s crediting of unsubstantiated claims of drug/alcohol influence.
Zero Evidence of Horrorified or Remorse
Semiah was horrified if you heard the 911 call and her testimony. Exact Opposite Proven in court with all the evident we all have and seen together all documented: Montana showed no remorse for murdering my son or our family’s pain—ever, in front of us or in court. This is the truth we all witnessed and cannot avoid.
Officer testimony (e.g., off-duty neighbor hearing yells, seeing Montana not helping but standing in the front yard), Semiah’s account (pulling Montana off of Sammy after she seen the knife on the drive once Sammy and Montana fell on the ground, she noted she grab the knife and throught it so Montana wouldn’t stab Sammy any more, no aid from Montana what so ever no help for my son), and his own actions (apologizing only to Semiah because he yelled at here, calling others to say he’s “going away for a long time,” merely pointing to the general crime scene for police without active help) this all clearly proves the opposite of remorse. The knife was lost in struggle, not dropped intentionally.
Additional Documented Points Proving Premeditation and Intent
There are many such points, all documented in the system but I will just point out a few (hospital records, police videos, trial testimony), and they will come out word-for-word exactly as I am stating here today.
For example: Semiah attempted to take her own life (Maybe this would have been import and even import that Montana hated my son immediately but we all new that I told you guys that from day one) because of her brother Montana’s actions and issues—not because of Sammy. I informed the Crown of this information early on, but it was never brought out or addressed in court. This occurred in the first 6 months of Semiah and Sammy’s relationship; the problems and conflict were always with Montana, never Sammy. The issue was far before my innocent son came into there life. This is fully documented in hospital record, if anyone had chosen to look, it would have been clear. As well documented conversation on social media stating all this information as well. I always thought it was funny how the scope was so small for a murder case. You would think they would stat that they can go back years if they must. Once again you would have seen the plan in the works. But even with out this information his action that day show planned and premeditated.
Other examples: Semiah testified that Montana was discussing manslaughter with Sammy that day and had him look it up online—not murder right?. Then, after he murdered my son, in jail (captured on police video that we all saw), when officers told Montana he would be charged with first-degree murder, Montana leaned back in his chair with his hands behind his head and stated, “I thought it would be manslaughter.” This is blatant evidence of premeditated murder—he expected a lesser charge because he tried to plan it this way when he was lying to them about what happed this first time. It happened right in front of everyone, and nothing was done about it. Sick world sick system we have. Look at you kids and think, that is the justice we need. This wasn’t an accident we will never get over this, and the system only added to our grief, anger, and frustration. THIS WAS MURDER to my beaufuil child Samuel Lucas Graham JR.
These points show a planned attack with specific intent, warranting appellate review for legal errors.
Legal Rights Invoked
• Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (SC 2015, c. 13, s. 2):
• Section 14: “Every victim has the right to convey their views about decisions… and to have those views considered.”
• Section 7: Right to information on proceedings status.
• Section 15: Right to present statements/views and have them considered.
• Section 25: Right to complaint for infringements.
• Ontario Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995 (S.O. 1995, c. 6) Principle 1: Treatment with courtesy, compassion, and respect.
• Crown Prosecution Manual D.36: Victims: Views must be considered; inform victims of appeals/progress; display sensitivity/fairness.
“These rights remain fully in force as confirmed on official Justice Laws and Ontario e-Laws sites in 2026”
Demand for Written Response by February 17, 2026:
- Appeal review status.
- How my views/evidence (including this history of ignored input) were considered.
- Reasons if no appeal.
No reply by then triggers a formal complaint under CVBR Section 25 and Ontario processes to the Ministry of the Attorney General for systemic infringement of participation/information rights.
Justice for Sammy requires real consideration—not dismissal. He is not a back door deal he was my child and was murder in the 1st degree.
Fight for him fight for us with out us law doesn’t exist we are the law.
Sam Graham
705-971-8794