Читать книгу Justice Miscarried - Helena Katz - Страница 5

“You are asking the government for mercy, for something you have never done.”

— David Milgaard, about his application to the federal justice minister to have his wrongful conviction for murder overturned.

A friend once confessed that it bothered her that people who have been convicted of a crime and imprisoned have the right to appeal their convictions and sentences.

“The appeals system wasn’t made to protect the guilty,” I said. “It was created to protect people who are wrongly convicted. Do you really want to have innocent people behind bars with no way to right the wrong when the justice system makes a mistake?” She nodded thoughtfully and agreed that the justice system needs checks and balances.

Behind the proud façade of Canada’s criminal justice system lie the shattered lives of the people unjustly caught in its web. Justice Miscarried tells the heart-wrenching stories of twelve innocent Canadians who were wrongly convicted, and the errors in the justice system that changed their lives forever. The sad truth is that while laws may appear to be infallible, the people who apply them are not. No one is immune to error — not those who gather evidence over the course of a police investigation, nor those who conduct autopsies and forensic testing, prosecute and defend cases, and preside over trials. Wrongful convictions were once viewed as isolated occurrences, but that is no longer the case. More than a half-dozen inquiries, from Saskatchewan to Newfoundland, have highlighted systemic reasons why things can — and do — go horribly wrong. Unfortunately, the people in the justice system aren’t necessarily good at admitting to mistakes and correcting them quickly. As lawyer James Lockyer told The Globe and Mail, “A wrongly convicted person becomes a victim on an express train without brakes.”[1]

Canada doesn’t have the death penalty, but the impact of wrongful convictions should never be underestimated. Life behind bars is dangerous, it’s a world where being assaulted by other inmates isn’t unusual. Ronald Dalton, who was wrongly convicted of murdering his wife, described prison life in an interview with The Globe and Mail:

There was always a pervasive air of tension in prison. The first time you’re in the gymnasium and a shotgun goes off from the gun tower, that gets to you. You develop a heightened sensitivity to what is going on around you. You learn to read the lay of the land, because you don’t know who is having a bad day or carrying a shiv. You can’t go around proclaiming your innocence in prison. Once you’re there, nobody wants to hear your sad story, because they all have their own. But you never give up hope, because it’s all you have to cling to. I’ve seen people go steadily downhill after they lost their last appeals, and had no more hope left.[2]

The prison system is not kind to people who have been wrongly convicted. Parole boards frequently perceive their continued statements of innocence as a lack of remorse, and evidence that they have yet to be rehabilitated. Consequently, they are frequently denied parole and end up spending many more years in prison than if they had admitted guilt for a crime they didn’t commit. Meanwhile, the lost years away from their families can never be regained. Dalton spent more than eight years behind bars. He missed seeing his three children grow up. His daughter was in kindergarten when he went to prison; within days of his release, he watched her graduate from high school. As the cases profiled in this book clearly demonstrate, the assumption that every conviction is legitimate is incorrect.

The stigma of a criminal conviction follows its victims long after their incarceration. When Thomas Sophonow was acquitted in 1985 of murdering Winnipeg doughnut shop waitress Barbara Stoppel, he hoped that other people would give him a chance. But he knew what lay ahead. “The theory of the propagandist is that if you repeat something often enough, over and over again, people seem to accept it as being the truth.”[3] A colleague at the manufacturing plant where he worked in 2002 hung a tag with the word “murderer” on his coveralls.

Wrongly convicted men and women aren’t the only victims. What about their families and those of the injured or murdered victims? They, too, are often traumatized by wrongful convictions. The victims’ families often feel some relief from knowing that the perpetrator is behind bars. But what happens when they learn that the real perpetrator continues to roam free? Do they relive the trauma of losing a loved one all over again along with not knowing what really happened? Nobody is held accountable if a murder remains unsolved. As time marches on and the trail gets colder, it can become more difficult to find the real killer. And what does it do for the confidence of the victims and their families in the criminal justice system? As Tim Orydzuk’s mother Jane pointed out in a letter to the editor that appeared in the Edmonton Journal, “There have been compound losses for the two families. Not only did we lose our boys, but we lost our faith in the Canadian justice system…. In the eyes of the justice system, it’s over. Nobody has been held accountable. There is still an empty chair around our table and a little girl who wonders why she has to grow up without her daddy.”[4]

In some cases of wrongful conviction, such as the murders of Sandy Seale and Gail Miller, another person is eventually found guilty of the crime that was initially attributed to an innocent person, such as Donald Marshall Jr. and David Milgaard, respectively. Even in such cases, families have to relive the trauma of losing a loved one as another trial with yet another suspect takes place.

The book’s first section profiles five cases where some of the most egregious errors were made during police investigations. Forensics experts are often called upon to testify, but as the four cases in the second part of Justice Miscarried demonstrate, experts sometimes misstate or overstate what they believe is evidence of a crime. From the Crown’s failure to disclose evidence to the defence counsel to eyewitness misidentification and errors of law, errors can also occur in the hands of lawyers and judges. A variety of causes can lead to miscarriages of justice, but among the most evident are the use of jailhouse informants, bad science, the Crown’s lack of disclosure, and eyewitness misidentification.

Advances in DNA technology have helped solve some murders and exonerate a number of wrongly convicted men and women. From gunshot residue tests to hair and fibre analysis and DNA testing, forensics are playing an increasingly important role in criminal investigations. Jurors place much weight on scientific evidence and expert testimony because of the air of infallibility and accuracy that science enjoys. This gives experts inordinate influence during criminal trials and makes the expert witness a powerful weapon in the Crown and defence’s arsenal. However, it is critical that they remain objective in their analysis and avoid being influenced by the person who hired them. Remaining neutral and keeping an open mind is tricky business, particularly since medical examiners, pathologists, and other forensic experts work closely with police officers and Crown prosecutors. Experts could be influenced, however subtly, to find evidence that supports a conclusion the police have already reached.

Until 2003, forensic pathology was not a recognized medical subspecialty in Canada and there was no formal training or certification. Consequently, many forensic pathologists did not have training in their field of practice; they learned on the job. In addition to a lack of neutrality, lack of training, and lack of adherence to scientific conventions can lead forensic experts to peddle bad science as credible evidence, leading to wrongful convictions and lost years behind bars.

The flip side is that the advent of DNA evidence has opened prison doors, letting a number of wrongfully convicted people free. According to the Innocence Project in New York, the first person exonerated by DNA evidence was in 1989. Some 266 people have been exonerated in the United States thanks to post-conviction DNA. At least seventeen of them served time on death row.

While DNA evidence has been a boon for so many wrongly convicted people, it has also presented a challenge for individuals who don’t have access to the evidence that could exonerate them. DNA evidence has become the gold standard for exonerations. Without it, it’s harder to convince courts that a miscarriage of justice has occurred based on other evidence such as faulty eyewitness identification or bad science. This makes the fight for exoneration and compensation much more difficult.

Until a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 1991, the Crown prosecutors’ failure to disclose evidence was an ongoing issue that could prevent an accused from getting a fair trial. Defence lawyers frequently felt ambushed during trials, as they were not given access to documents that could help them mount a full defence, or potentially exonerate their clients. With little duty to disclose, the Crown only had to provide defence counsel with the evidence that the prosecution considered relevant.

In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Crown has a duty to fully disclose all evidence to the defence — not just the information it planned to present in court. In an adversarial justice system, securing convictions can take precedence over finding the truth. In a stinging comment, Justice Felix Cacchione told the Marshall inquiry that some prosecutors seemed to measure their success by the number of convictions they were able to secure: “Unfortunately, I found with certain persons it was a matter of how many notches did you have on your ‘win’ belt.”[5] This raises the question: What is the role of the prosecutor in the criminal justice system? Is it to win convictions or to find the truth?

Judges bring their own level of knowledge and experience with criminal law to their positions. In Quebec, for example, lawyers need to have been in practice for ten years before they can apply to become a provincial court judge. However, the law doesn’t require that they have courtroom or criminal law experience. That’s why former Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal Justice William Marshall told a conference on wrongful convictions that trial judges can also make errors that lead to wrongful convictions. “It is difficult to perceive how any credible inquiry into a wrongful conviction could be commissioned without expectation that every stage of the judicial process leading to the miscarriage — including the judiciary’s acquittal of its responsibilities — would be vetted,” Justice Marshall told his audience.[6] Inquiries should also examine mistakes that judges may have made that could have contributed to a wrongful conviction. Respecting judicial independence shouldn’t occur at the expense of examining their performances.

The road to exoneration is a long and costly one for victims of a miscarriage of justice. Once they have exhausted the appeals process, the final avenue is to appeal to the federal minister of justice to review their conviction under Section 696.1 (formerly Section 690) of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Conviction Review Group’s lawyers review applications and make recommendations to the minister. If they find that a wrongful conviction is likely to have occurred, the minister can order a new trial, refer the case to a court of appeal, or refer specific questions to a court of appeal for an opinion. However, an applicant has to demonstrate they have new and significant information that was not available during the trial or appeals but which could have affected the outcome had it been available at the time. After determining that an application meets this criteria, a lawyer from the CCRG can conduct an investigation that includes interviewing witnesses to clarify or verify information, ordering scientific tests such as DNA testing, consulting police, prosecutors, and defence lawyers who were involved in the case’s trial and appeals.

But much work happens before a file arrives in the hands of the CCRG. Canadian inmates rely heavily on the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted in Toronto (AIDWYC). It includes a group of lawyers who volunteer their time to review cases on a pro bono basis and prepare Section 696.1 applications. The association was born from the Justice for Guy Paul Morin Committee, which was created in 1992 to support him after he was wrongly convicted of murdering the little girl who lived next door. Volunteers spend hundreds of hours sifting through files, re-interviewing witnesses, analyzing court transcripts, and searching for any information that may have been overlooked previously and could cast doubt on a conviction. AIDWYC has helped exonerate a number of people, including Nova Scotia’s Clayton Johnson, Newfoundland’s Greg Parsons and Randy Druken, Ontario’s William Mullins-Johnson, Steven Truscott, and Gordon Folland, Manitoba’s James Driskell, and Saskatchewan’s David Milgaard. Prisoners also depend on the Innocence Project, a program run by the faculties of law at Toronto’s York University and Montreal’s McGill University. The Innocence Project at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto helped exonerate Gary Staples and Romeo Phillion.

Critics say the federal justice department’s process for applying for possible cases of wrongful convictions is flawed because the people who review the cases answer directly to the Department of Justice — the same government department that is responsible for Canada’s justice system. They claim that there is a real or perceived bias toward defending the justice system. The final decision on cases is left to a politician: the justice minister. In 1989, the royal commission into Donald Marshall’s wrongful conviction recommended that Canada create an independent agency to examine cases of possible wrongful convictions. In the intervening twenty years, that recommendation has been made by other inquiries including, most recently, the 2008 Commission of Inquiry into the Wrongful Conviction of David Milgaard.

These recommendations call for an independent agency modelled after Britain’s Criminal Cases Review Commission, which was created in 1997 to investigate suspected cases of wrongful convictions or unfair sentencing, sending those with merit to the courts. The staff of approximately 100 (compared to about six in Canada’s CCRG) is accountable only to the commission’s eleven commissioners. The organization receives about 1,000 applications to review each year and refers about 4 percent to appeal courts. About two thirds of those referred to the courts have led to quashed convictions. As of December 31, 2010, this process had resulted in 309 overturned convictions.

Once an exoneration has been won in Canada, compensation for a wrongful conviction doesn’t always immediately follow. Marshall’s case marked the first time that a Canadian was exonerated for a murder after serving a lengthy prison sentence. The idea that the justice system had made a mistake seemed inconceivable to lawmakers. Marshall fought for more than eleven years to clear his name — and another seven for compensation. When Marshall began fighting for compensation in the early 1980s, there was no precedent for awarding compensation in the case of wrongful convictions. A federal-provincial agreement was signed in 1988 that defined the circumstances under which someone can be compensated. Although the federal and provincial governments share the costs, it’s left up to provincial governments to decide whether or not to award compensation and how much. A prerequisite for receiving compensation is known as “factual innocence”: irrefutable proof that the person is innocent. An acquittal isn’t enough, as was the case for Michel Dumont, who was acquitted of sexual assault when the victim recanted. He filed a civil suit, which entailed another lengthy battle. As Joyce Milgaard, David Milgaard’s mother, said at a news conference in 2005, “After the first injustice for a crime he did not commit, Michel is now faced with the second injustice of having to face another trial to obtain compensation.”[7] He was not the first to file a civil suit, and he likely won’t be the last.

The indisputable truth is that people in the justice system will make mistakes. We need to accept that mistakes have been and will continue to be made. While a person who is accused of a crime is held accountable, the question remains: Who should be accountable when wrongful convictions occur? Is it enough to admonish police, prosecutors, pathologists, forensics experts, and judges who contribute to a wrongful conviction? Should prosecutors be disbarred for misconduct? Should pathologists lose their licenses or be suspended? Is there a better way to hold them accountable? It is difficult to win civil suits against those responsible for the wrongful conviction. Just how much protection should they have from decisions that lead to wrongful convictions?

Victims want someone to stand up and say they’re sorry for what was done to them. All too often, the apologies are a long time in coming. If the justice system makes mistakes, we also need to spot them quickly, own up to and correct them. We owe it to the men and women who have been falsely convicted and languish for years behind bars waiting for justice. We also owe it to the victims of criminal acts and their families, who are re-victimized by knowing that the real perpetrator continues to go free.

Notes

1. Kirk Makin. “The Lawyer Who Has ‘A Cause For A Client’” The Globe and Mail, May 12, 1999.

2. Kirk Makin. “The Innocence Industry.” The Globe and Mail, July 7, 2001.

3. “Freed Man Worried About Fate Outside Jail.” The Ottawa Citizen, December 14, 1985, final edition.

4. Jane Orydzuk. “CBC Betrays Family of Slaying Victim.” Edmonton Journal, October 20, 1999, final edition.

5. Deborah Wilson. “N.S. Justice System Undermined by Old-Boys’ Network, Judge Says.” The Globe and Mail, May 18, 1988.

6. Kirk Makin. “ Judicial Accountability Urged in Wrongful-Conviction Cases.” The Globe and Mail, June 13, 2005.

7. Ann Carroll. “Quebec Justice Proves Elusive for Wrongfully Convicted Man.” The Gazette. May 11, 2005, final edition.