Introduction Historically in Canada, there have been over 100 cases of people being wrongfully accused and negatively impacted by the punishments given out by courts. One Canadian who suffered the experience of this was Thomas Sophonow. He was accused of murder and put on trial three times for the death of Barbara Stoppel. Throughout this case, several mistakes on the part of the police, and the way evidence was introduced, were not uncovered until after Sophonow’s conviction. It was a continuous fight as the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. This case should have the attention of the legal community in order to not have a repeat of the injustice that Sophonow and the victim's family experienced. Inadequate Legal Representation, Eyewitness Misidentification and Faulty Forensic Evidence were combined to make this …show more content…
In the article, Innocence Canada: Thomas Sophonow, Sarah Harland-Logan, argues that the main reason Sophonow was convicted was the testimony given by jailhouse informants, who’s evidence was sketchy at best but accepted at the time as fact by the court. Quoted by Harland-Logan. The author here breaks down the motivations of each of these witnesses and describes how, out of their own personal interest, they provided testimony that claimed Sophonow had told them while in jail he was guilty. This is very weak and it is surprising that the defense team did not have a stronger way to rebuke this evidence and discredit the informants. What made matters worse for Sophonow was the judge in his case made comments to the jury that created a bias and doubt towards the alibi given by the defense (quote Caragata). It seems from the material reviewed here that Sophonow did not receive a fair trial on many levels. The defense team’s inability to make effective arguments to help their client also contributed to this miscarriage of
Most of these defendants couldn’t afford private attorneys and depended upon public defenders. For instance, Joe Moore had two prior convictions and was facing a maximum of a 90 year sentence for selling three grams of cocaine. However, Moore begged his public defender to call Eliga Kelly to stand in his defense. Moore claimed that Kelly witnessed him shoe Coleman off of his property. For whatever reasons, his public defender never bothered to call Kelly to the stand or even question him privately. After all, Eliga Kelly was considered a star witness for the prosecution, but, as a result of that negligence, Moore was sentenced to 90 years. Unlike most criminal informants, Eliga Kelly refused to lie under oath and in a subsequent trial for a different defendant, the prosecutor called Kelly to the stand. Kelly contradicted Coleman’s testimony by naming several defendants, including Joe Moore, who refused to sell drugs to
The wrongful conviction of Tammy Marquardt was also aided by the misconduct of the parties involved. Goudge (2008) claimed that Smith, other medical experts and prosecutors operated with a “think dirty” mindset, which presumes guilt first, rather than the ‘innocent until proven guilty‘ doctrine highly valued in the justice system. “The Goudge Commission found the actual words ‘think dirty’ in instructions from Ontario’s chief coroners, pathologists and police chiefs in 1995” (Shapiro, 2011). In Ms. Marquardt’s case, there is no way to conceal the fact that the professionals of the adversarial system did not satisfactorily perform their roles. It has already been demonstrated that Dr. Charles Smith “saw his role as supporting the prosecution,
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
Evidently, Truscott received financial compensation for the ordeal and the suffering it brought to his life by being awarded $6.5 million from the Government. This led to the conclusion that in this case (like many others) the police were solely and unjustly targeting one person. I learned a great deal from this case about Canada’s previous laws. Prior to the case, I had known about the death penalty and that it was legal in Canada, but I did not know when it could be implemented.
One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial. In total this was 444-days after the accused was charged with the impaired driving offence. The final verdict of this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the decision by the Ontario Court of appeal that decided that the trial delay was reasonable due to lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay.
Victims’ rights include being informed of the investigation, being able to make a witness statement, being informed of the charges laid against the accused and being treated with sympathy and compassion. (Charter of Victim’s Rights NT 2016). The rights of the accused are outlined Article 14 of ‘The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, which states that the accused must; be informed of the charges laid against them, have adequate time to prepare and choose a counsel of their choosing, be tried without undue delay, be tried in the presence of the court, not be compelled to testify against themselves or confess guilt and be compensated by the court if wrongfully convicted (ICCPR 1966). These rights must be upheld to ensure equality before the law, however, when neglected justice is denied as illustrated in the Mallard and Raggett
The Canadian justice system, although much evolved, is having difficulty eliminating bias from the legal system. Abdurahman Ibrahim Hassan, a 39 year old man, died on June 11 in a Peterborough hospital, while under immigration detention. He came to Canada in 1993 as a refugee and was suffering from mental, and physical health issues such as diabetes and bipolar disorder. There was an overwhelming amount of secrecy surrounding the death of this troubled Toronto man, and to this day no light has been shed on this tragedy. (Keung, 2015) An analysis of the official version of the law will reveal how race class and gender coincide with the bias within the legal system.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse informants, eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, inappropriate, professional and institutional misconduct and scientific limitations that society possessed prior to the technological revolution (Roberts, Grossman, 2012, 253 – 259). The introduction of more advanced DNA analysis has been able to clear names and prevent these incidences from occurring as often. As well as the formation of foundations such as The Association of Defense for the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). Unfortunately, mistakes made in the Canadian Justice System have serious life altering repercussions for everyone that is involved. Both systematic and personal issues arise that require deeper and more intense analysis.
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText