Wrongfully Convicted Trial Cases - Case Study Example

Wrongfully Convicted Trial Cases s Wrongfully Convicted Trial Cases Introduction Therole of the justice system is to ensure the society abides by the law and any wishful disregard of the law is punishable. Conviction is unknowable. Wrongful convictions have not only occurred in Canada, but also in other legal systems across the world. People who have been wrongfully convicted are often affected negatively psychologically in contrast to the legitimately convicted persons. In the Canadian justice system, forensic evidence has played a major role in numerous wrongful convictions. It is very difficult, if not possible, to approximate the number of wrongful convictions in Canada. This is attributable to the ambiguity of what comprises a wrongful conviction as well as an unwillingness of the legal system to make determinations of innocence. Nonetheless, wrongful convictions can be overturned. In Canada, the Association in Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted (AIDWYC) has assisted in the exoneration of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted. In this perspective, the paper will discuss the wrongful convicted cases of Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard, and Donald Marshal, Jr. Discussion Identifying wrongful convictions might be a proverbial tip of the iceberg in broader universe of criminal cases. In Canada, the most recognized wrongful convictions have been found in sexual assault or homicide. However, these cases constitute a very small percentage of all the convictions along with criminal cases. Furthermore, Roach (2012) notes that wrongful convictions often arise from cases where the accused persons pleaded guilty. The defendants usually plead guilty in response to incentives like reduced sentences which the state offers in addition to the practical difficulties of defending themselves as opposed to the state’s much greater resources. In the Canadian justice system, Rossmo (2010) shares the view that the appellate courts of Canada may overturn convictions on various grounds, such as error of law, unreasonable guilty verdict that cannot be supported by evidence, and based to any ground that there was a miscarriage of justice. Some of the cases that have been wrongfully include that of: Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard, and Donald Marshal, Jr. Guy Paul Morin In the case of Guy Paul Morin, he was handed a life sentence in 1992 for the murder of nine-year-old Christine Jessop in 1984. Jessop disappeared from her home in Queensville, Ontario, and she was found dead in a farmer’s field two months later and sexually assaulted. Charged with the murder of Jessop; however, Morin was acquitted in 1986. However, a new trial was called by the Appellate Court of Ontario. At this second trial, Guy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, he was exonerated by DNA evidence (Faryon, 2012). The Ontario Court of Appeal has characterized the accused’s appeal rights, combined with the power to admit fresh evidence and hear evidence from witnesses under section 683 of the Criminal Code in the broad rights of appeal. It has stated that the broad right of appeal involves the power to receive fresh evidence, and to maximize protection against wrongful convictions (Loftus, 2005). When the school bus dropped Jessop at her home, both her parents were not at home. The owner of a nearby convenient store was the last one to see her where she had gone to purchase bubble gum. Three months later her dead sexually-abused body was found. Morin, her next door neighbor, was arrested and charged with the murder of Jessop. After the first trial resulted in his acquittal, the Crown exercised its right to appeal the verdict. According to Faryon (2012), Ontario’s attorney general launched an appeal of Morin’s acquittal arguing that the trial judge made an error in directing the jury in relation to the meaning of the word ‘reasonable doubt.’ In other words, the judge made significant mistake prejudicing the right of the Crown to a fair trial. The Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and Morin was retried. Guy appealed this decision to the Canadian Supreme Court, but it was dismissed. Even though the retrial was set in 1987, it was delayed to 1992 by Guy’s own appeals as well as according to the Crown’s non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence that tends to exonerate the defendant from guilt and among other issues such as the double jeopardy rule that prohibits the defendant from being tried again on similar charges following either a legitimate conviction or acquittal. The second trial convicted Morin to life imprisonment. The ruling was considered to be flawed since the new jury used the same evidence with regard to the presumed incriminating fibres and hairs, the confession of Guy to Mr. May, and using new evidence from witnesses who had not testified at the first trial. This gave birth to the Association in Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted. The AIDWYC had the intent to win an appeal by proving the fiber and hair evidence, and ‘jailhouse informant’ as unreliable evidence. However, DNA test results on Jessop’s underpants found out that Morin was not guilty of Christian’s murder. Morin’s appeal was allowed and his conviction reversed. Besides that, an acquittal directed verdict also entered in the appeal (Faryon, 2012). According to the Kaufman report, there was evidence of prosecutorial and police misconduct, and the Ontario Centre of Forensic Sciences misinterpreting the forensic evidence. The report argued that there was ‘tunnel vision’ by the police and prosecutor because they single-mindedly and narrowly focused their investigation. In a view shared by Roach (2012), ‘tunnel vision’ is a common feature in the miscarriages for justice. Next, bad science allowed Morin to be convicted for a murder he did not commit. The scientists at the forensic centre significantly contributed to the miscarriage of justice by contaminating the fibres from both Christine’s apparel as well as Mr. Guy’s car. The scientists realized that the samples were contaminated, but withheld the information from the police. Guy was also wrongfully convicted due to unreliable witness testimony. The prosecution relied heavily the ‘patently unreliable’ testimony from two jailhouse informants in addition to the police mishandling various aspects of the investigation. After the review of justice, it was also found out that there some injuries that were apparent to Christine’s body which had not been described in the original autopsy report. This shows the flaws in the evidence provided by the prosecution The other reason why the case was appealed is because in the second trial, the double jeopardy rule was breached. Section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits double jeopardy. After the first was dismissed, the new trial in 1992 was regarded as being in double jeopardy because the first trial would have been annulled. To that effect, in his second trial; Morin was wrongfully convicted. The acquittal in his first trial was vacated by the Canadian Supreme Court. The first trial proceedings were rendered an abuse of process along with breach of section 7 and 11 (d) Charter Rights due to police misconduct and a stay of proceedings based on misleading disclosure and non-disclosure. However, section 686 of the Criminal Code has not been amended to let convictions to be reversed based on a lurking doubt. David Milgaard In 1969, David Milgaard was convicted for life imprisonment for murdering a 22-year-old nursing aide Gail Miller. Miller was raped and later stabbed to death. Appeals to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal together with the Canadian Supreme Court were unsuccessful two years after his conviction. Milgaard’s mother played a major role in trying to prove the innocence of her son. According to the AIDWYC, after Milgaard was denied parole in 1979, Milgaard’s mother started to uncover evidence of false testimony and police misconduct. She also came across information pointing at Larry Fisher who had been convicted for various crimes of sexual assault as the one responsible for the murder. Moreover, DNA testing convicted Fisher and exonerated Milgaard after spending 23 years in a penitentiary. Realizing its mistake in the administration of justice, the Saskatchewan government awarded Milgaard $10 million as compensation for being wrongly convicted of murder. On November 22, 1999, Larry Fischer was at long last convicted for the murder of Gail Miller. There was breach of section 690 of the Criminal Code that was order by the justice minister, but it was denied by the government of Saskatchewan. However, it entered into a stay of proceedings in Milgaard’s case. Next, according to Harland-Logan (2013), David was wrongfully convicted because of the improper questioning of witnesses. The miscarriage of justice was perpetuated because David’s friends who were questioned, Ron and Nichol altered their story from the true and original version of where they were with Milgaard throughout the morning of Gail’s murder, to an implicating version that resulted in Milgaard’s arrest and eventual conviction. Both Ron and Nichol later admitted falsely their friend. Ron encouraged Nichol to give the police what they wanted, which further ‘sank’ David. The two young people were further induced to fabricate a narrative that would put Milgaard in prison. This shows that the police took advantage of the vulnerability of the two young witnesses. The young witnesses were also not handled with care. Additionally, there was no extra person when the statements were taken from the young persons. The next reason why there was miscarriage of justice is that the police also failed to investigate the 1980 report by Linda Fischer that Larry might have killed Gail, even though the report was received, filed, and referred. Milgaard would have been released from prison if the police had followed the statement they received from Linda Fischer, Larry’s ex-wife. David’s case remains as a reminder of the hardships of determining innocence in the legal system of Canada, particularly in cases where there is either no DNA or other scientific evidence that is considered as definitive. Donald Marshall, Jr. Donald Marshall, Jr., a Mikmaq man, was wrongfully convicted of murder of Sandy Seale and sentenced to life imprisonment. Marshall was the prime suspect for the following reasons: he sustained injury from the incident, he was an eye witness to the murder, he was known to the law enforcement agents as a trouble maker, and he was seen running from the park (Rossmo, 2010). However, the case raised numerous questions in relation to the fairness of the Canadian legal system, particularly considering that Donald Marshall was an aboriginal. The case was appealed on the grounds of racial discrimination, misjudgment and inadequacies, incompetence, and miscarriage of justice. Leading up to Marshall’s trial, which was heard in over three days; the Crown’s prosecutor did not interview the teenage witnesses that gave differing statements. The prosecution mishandled the case by offering rewards to the witnesses such as Cadrain in order to provide false information. This was against Marshall right of receiving a fair trial. In addition, the Crown prosecutor did not inform the Marshall’s defense counsel of the inconsistencies. None of their previous inconsistent statements that they had not seen Donald stab Seale were disclosed to Donald. However, at that time, there was no right to disclosure, and disclosure was on a voluntary basis. The prosecutors often provided disclosure. However, Donald’s lawyers failed to ask for disclosure from the Crown, carry out an independent investigation, or interview the Crown witnesses. After Marshall’s convictions, there were amendments to the Canadian Evidence Act so that any evidence acquired is supposed to be presented to the defense on disclosure. However, before this case, the attorney’s of the Crown had absolute discretion to present what they established to be important to a case. Additionally, the trial judge also made various mistakes in law, for instance, misinterpreting the key evidence as well as legislation. When two of the teenage witnesses tried to retract their false testimony at trial, the trial judge did not permit a full cross-examination with regard as to why one witness had repudiated outside court. The jury appeared to have assumed that the repudiation might have been related to the threats of Donald. Contrarily, Donald had been denied bail and was locked up. Marshall’s lawyer did not raise the trial judge’s legal errors like the prevention of full cross-examination, which would have prevented Donald’s wrongful conviction (Roach, 2012). In relation racism, Marshall was tried before an all-white, all-male jury. Donald was also disallowed to ask the prospective jurors questions relating to racial bias. The juror’s might have influenced the irrelevant evidence, for instance, Marshall’s tattoo of ‘I hate cops’ besides the testimonies of Seale’s mourning parents. Besides, Marshall’ defense did not carry out an independent investigation since they believed that Marshall was guilty, and partially because he was Aboriginal. Donald’s Charter Rights were breached that prohibits discrimination of any kind to any person regardless of the gender, social background, nationality, disability, and race among others. The inadequacies and incompetence is evident when ten days after Donald was convicted, James MacNeil informed the Sydney Police that he actually saw Ebsary stab Seale with a knife. The investigating team did not acquire the Sydney police file that contained MacNeil’s statements. Also, they did not conduct any further interviews reaching to a conclusion that Marshall stabbed 17-year-old teen, Sand Seale, on the night of May 28, 1971. In case of new evidence, both the defendant and plaintiff need to be informed. On the contrary, the Sidney police did not inform either Marshall’a lawyers or the Crown prosecutor that was handling Donald’s appeal that McNeil had tabled new information that was very vital to the case. Besides, Ebsary’s daughter also told the Sydney Police that she saw her father washing blood from his knife the same night Seale was killed. However, the police informed her that the case was closed, thus not sharing also this new information. In 1981, while in prison, Donald Marshall, Jr. learned that Ebsary had admitted to murdering Sand Seale. His defense lawyer asked the law enforcement agents to reopen the case. Considering that Marshall’s appeals options were exhausted, he petitioned the federal Minister for Justice for the mercy of the Crown. He was granted bail pending the new appeal. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed Donald Marshall’s murder conviction after taking into account the new evidence of James McNeil that he was with Ebsary when Ebsary stabbed Seale and also Ebsary himself confessing while in jail that he was skilled in using knives and he is the one who killed Seale. In 1990, the Royal Commission established that misjudgment and inadequacies, systematic racism, incompetence, and miscarriage of justice contributed to his wrongly conviction. The Royal Commission evaluated the case and ruled that Donald Marshall was not guilty, but he is to be blamed for his conviction based on his untruths. The Appellate court of Nova Scotia acquitted Marshall in 1983. The Nova Scotia government compensated him $250,000 for his wrongful conviction that resulted in him spending 11 years in prison. Roby Ebsary, who often boasted of being skilled with knives, was the one who was eventually convicted on Seale’s murder, and spent a year in jail. The criminal justice system was accused of racism, miscarriage of justice, and incompetence. Conclusion Most of the cases that have been found to end in wrongful convictions are homicide and sexual assault. In summary, all the three cases of Guy Paul Morin, David Milgarrd, and Donald Marshal, Jr. were reviewed because the police and prosecution mishandled various aspects of the investigation and also the trial judges erred in law in either their reasons or instructions to juries. Therefore, there were misjudgments, inadequacies, and incompetence during the trials. In the same way, these cases were brought to the criminal justice system for review in order to demonstrate the unreliability of the witness testimony. There was evidence of false testimony and police misconduct by all the three cases resulting in unfairness at trial, even though evidence was admitted on appeal which put the reliability of the conviction in serious doubt. Jailhouse informants have contributed to numerous wrongful convictions. Therefore, the evidence from the jailhouse informants needs to be rigorously evaluated of their account to the accused individual’s alleged statement. Therefore, the cases also had their evidences that were used to convict the alleged suspects tampered with. As forensic techniques and scientific knowledge and continue to advance, more people will continue to be exonerated. The miscarriage of justice did not lie in the conduct of trial but in maintaining the conviction in relation to the new evidence that causes the conviction to be factually unreliable. The cases were not unique and certainly not isolated, even though the exact number of wrongful convictions vary considerably. Every miscarriage of justice deals a blow to the society’s confidence in the legal system. References Faryon, C. J. (2012). Real Justice: Guilty of Being Weird: The story of Guy Paul Morin. Ontario: James Lorimer & Amp Company. Harland-Logan, S. (2013). David Milgaard, Retrieved March 5, 2015, from http://www.aidwyc.org/cases/historical/david-milgaard/ Loftus, E. (2005). “Planting Misinformation in the Human Mind: A 30-year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory,” Learning & Memory, 1(12): 361-366. Roach, K. (2012). Wrongful Convictions in Canada. University of Cincinnati Law Review , 80 (1), 1465-1525. Rossmo, K. (2010). Criminal Investigative Failures. New York: CRC Press. Read More