Prosecutors in Las Vegas | Matt Miazga | Conflict of interest | Lessons from the Proulx case | Courageous prosecutor Terry Hinz | Miazga | Hansen | Quinney | Defence lawyers who perhaps love the Crown too much : Holgate | Dufour | Axworthy | the lawyers in the following waltzes of their clients to guilty verdicts: Gerald Morris | Howard Gowan | Leon Walchuk | Don Smith |   Martensville Nightmare won't go away: 2006: Saskatchewan Prosecutors continue to defend their malicious prosecutions Conflict of Interest   Crown Prosecutors and Conflict of Interest: A Canadian Perspective (continued from previous page) A second example is provided by the case of R. v. Ahluwahlia. In that case, fresh evidence was admitted on appeal to demonstrate that a Crown witness at trial, a F.B.I. police agent, had lied about his criminal record. The judgment of Doherty J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, was highly critical of the Crown's failure to explain the perjury: For reasons not shared with this court, the Crown does not appear to have regarded itself as under any obligation to get to the bottom of this matter. It contended itself with inquiries of counsel involved in the case and some Canadian police officers .... The Crown has obligations to the administration of justice that do not burden other litigants. Faced with its own witness's perjury and the fact that the perjured evidence coincided with the incomplete disclosure that the Crown says it innocently passed to the defence, the Crown was obliged to take all reasonable steps to find out what had happened and to share the results of those inquiries with the defence. Crown counsel usually rely on the police to get to the bottom of investigative matters; Ahluwahlia makes clear that delegation of responsibility may not suffice in some circumstances. The bluntness of Doherty J.A.'s criticism may be a further attempt to bring home to the Crown one of the primary lessons of the Morin Commission: the Crown must be ever vigilant to guard against "tunnel vision" -- whether our own, or that of the police. The Crown may have to poke and prod the investigators, to ensure that they were not afflicted by tunnel vision. Hard questions must be asked, and firm measures taken to ensure the integrity of the administration of justice. To some extent, this will involve thinking and acting like an investigator yourself. The third example arises from the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Proulx c. Québec (Procureur général). Proulx had been convicted of murder but the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and entered an acquittal. [FN43] Proulx then launched the Quebec equivalent of a malicious prosecution suit, which succeeded at trial, but was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal, 2:1. The Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the trial judgment by a 4:3 vote. Among the factors the Supreme Court majority relied upon to characterize the prosecutor's actions as malicious, was the prosecutor's reliance on investigative work done by a retired police officer, Tardif. Tardif was the original lead investigator. By 1999, he was not only retired, but facing a defamation action by Proulx. The majority criticized the prosecutor for "allow [ing] Tardif to resume work on the case," when Tardif was in a manifest conflict of interest. Nowhere does the majority acknowledge that assignment of investigators is in fact the responsibility of the police, not Crown counsel. That point aside, one of the messages we must take from this judgment is that Crown counsel ought not simply serve up whatever has been prepared by the police. To the Proulx majority, Crown counsel's obligation appears to be to scrutinize not only the individual pieces of evidence, but the investigation as a whole. It will be interesting to see how the case law in this area develops. Will the courts increasingly expect Crown counsel to, in effect, vouch for the investigation? How can Crown counsel actually do so without taking American District Attorney-style control of the investigation? The scope of Crown counsel's responsibility to investigate poses difficult problems. G. Penal Envy: Controlling the Urge to Overcharge and Overincarcerate To the overzealous prosecutor, the desire to punish is an irresistible urge. In the most notorious recent example, a series of extradition cases went south [FN46] because an intemperate American prosecutor had the bad sense to tell a Canadian television audience that an accused would be the "boyfriend of a very bad man [in prison]" if he didn't return to the U.S. posthaste. For such prosecutors, no indictment is too long, and no term of incarceration too punitive. Prosecutors are, however, receiving a host of messages from different sources aimed at changing such attitudes. The Martin Committee reminded Crown counsel that "the object is not to put as many accused as possible in jail as quickly as possible, but to achieve justice". [FN48] At least since that Committee's report, if not before, charge screening has been regarded as a crucial activity of Crown counsel to reduce unnecessary charges and facilitate early resolution of cases. In the Federal Prosecution Service policy manual, it is stated that "[e]arly charge screening and case assessments are decisive points in the prosecution process and constitute cornerstones of the litigation policy". The courts too, are demanding that prosecutors bring manageable indictments before them. The message to prosecutors is equally loud with respect to sentencing. Parliament clearly believed that jails and prisons were too full, and enacted sentencing provisions aimed at reducing prison populations. Conditional sentences are here to stay -- get over it. To be a Crown advocate in 2001 thus involves a firm responsibility to assist the administration of justice in achieving maximized efficiency. Fewer prosecutions, more diversion, fewer charges, less jail. While we may not have been reduced to being bean-counters, there is a heightened sense of obligation to help the court system cope with the strain of lengthy dockets. H. I am Prosecutor, Beware my Wrathful Roar: Confusing Independence with Licence In 1925, the Attorney General of England, Viscount Simon, did prosecutors a great service and disservice by proclaiming that the Attorney General "should receive orders from nobody". He was speaking of the Attorney General's responsibilities with respect to the institution of proceedings, and making the eminently sensible point that the decision to institute proceedings should not be subject to political influence. Viscount Simon was also speaking of himself, or rather his office -- nothing about his famous statement could have been intended to give rise to a conception of prosecutors as rugged individualists, taking orders from no one as they exercise their unbridled discretion. It would be surprising if Simon himself did not think he could issue orders to those carrying out his work. As a practical matter, prosecutors do not "receive orders" from anybody with respect to the vast majority of decisions they are required to make. There are simply too many decisions and too many prosecutors to permit strict oversight of individual prosecutors. This reality should not be permitted to foster an "I call the shots" attitude among prosecutors. Unfortunately, the previously-mentioned decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Proulx c. Québec (Procureur général) may give some comfort to the "rugged individualist" prosecutor. In seeking to demonstrate the absence of malice, the prosecutor in Proulx had testified that he did not institute proceedings on his own, but consulted with colleagues and superiors. The Proulx majority was dismissive: Nor can the Prosecutor rely on consultations that he had with colleagues and superiors. He knew more about the case than they did and, as the holder of an important office under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, the decision to lay the charge was his and his alone: R. v. Campbell, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565, at para. 33. [Emphasis added.] The words "holder of an important office" under the Criminal Code are perhaps an oblique reference to the definition of "prosecutor" under section 2 of the Criminal Code which states: "prosecutor" means the Attorney General or, where the Attorney General does not intervene, means the person who institutes proceedings to which this Act applies, and includes counsel acting on behalf of either of them. This paragraph of the Proulx judgment is supportable neither by the reference to the Shirose judgment (paragraph 33 of that judgment refers to an inapposite judgment of Lord Denning's on the independence of police constables) nor by the definition of "prosecutor" in the Code, nor by principle. The decision to lay charges is the Attorney General's, and counsel acts on his/her behalf. Indeed, counsel may receive direction from the Attorney General. It is one thing to say, as perhaps the Proulx majority intended, that consultation is not a full answer to an allegation of malice; it is quite another to encourage the wrong- headed belief that every prosecutor is an island of individual decision-making. Despite Proulx, and despite the fact that the independence principle remains significant, it has probably been eclipsed in importance at this moment in time by a principle of accountability. The prime motivating force behind this is again the celebrated series of wrongful convictions in this country, and the resultant concern for public confidence in the justice system. Again, the federal policy manual is relevant, as it is rife with messages of accountability. The Deskbook itself, as a public document, is intended in part to explain prosecutorial practices to the public. The policy on Communicating with the Media seeks to put an end to the traditional Crown response to media inquiries: "no comment". The policy on "Independence and Accountability in Decision-Making" seeks to describe the meaning of independence and how it neither discourages consultation nor precludes accountability. The number of reporting obligations in the Deskbook is considerable. The Courts, too, are increasingly seeking to hold the prosecution accountable. Orders of costs against the Crown have been frequent. Courts are demanding explanations for actions, even for actions which have traditionally been done without explanation, such as the entry of stays of proceedings. Courts still say nice things about the integrity of Crown counsel, but they want the comfort of knowing there is a reasonable explanation for decisions taken. The message to Crown counsel is this: exercise independent judgment, but consult where necessary (taking a liberal reading of "where necessary") and be prepared to justify your decisions. And in all cases, where two or more paths present themselves, take the high road. The views expressed are those of the author and not of the federal Department of Justice. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Kenneth Campbell of the A.G. Ontario, whose excellent unpublished papers on the first two sins were very helpful. [FNa1]. Of the Ontario Bar. [FN1]. (1954), [1955] S.C.R. 16, 110 C.C.C. 263, 20 C.R. 1, 1954 CarswellQue 14 (S.C.C.). [FN2]. Boucher, ibid. at 23-24 [S.C.R.]. [FN3]. Indeed, so frequent are these allegations in Ontario that the Court of Appeal has promulgated special rules for dealing with them: see Procedural Protocol -- Re Allegations of Incompetence of Trial Counsel in Criminal Cases, www.ontariocourts.on.ca/court___of___appeal/notices/procedural- protocol/index.html. [FN4]. Unless, perhaps, you happen to work for the recently salary-augmented A.G. Ontario, but I don't want to deal with envy in this section. [FN5]. Readers interested in knowing more about the seven deadly sins should consult the informative website at www.rushman.org/seven/. For a discussion of the provocative thesis that each of the seven castaways on Gilligan's Island represent one of the deadly sins, see http:// members.tripod.com/TTLF/gilligan.html. [FN6]. A representative sample includes: R. v. Rose, 42 C.R. (5th) 183, 153 C.C.C. (3d) 225, 2001 CarswellOnt 955, [2001] O.J. No. 1150 (Ont. C.A.) (forced accused to "defend against vague and irrelevant suggestions of improper conduct"); R. v. Riche, 146 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 27, 1996 CarswellNfld 337 (Nfld. C.A.) (cross-examination termed "outrageous"); R. v. R. (A.J.) (1994), 94 C.C.C. (3d) 168, 1994 CarswellOnt 152 (Ont. C.A.) (cross- examination "calculated to demean and humiliate" the accused). It was noted in R. (A.J.) that the volume of such cases in Ontario alone was large; it has multiplied since. [FN7]. 151 C.C.C. (3d) 566, 2000 CarswellQue 2824 (Que. C.A.) at 570 [C.C.C.]. [FN8]. 143 C.C.C. (3d) 355, 32 C.R. (5th) 226, 2000 CarswellOnt 556 (Ont. C.A.). [FN9]. Cones, ibid. at 366 [C.C.C.]. [FN10]. See, for example, R. v. Schell, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 219, 38 C.R. (5th) 165, 2000 CarswellOnt 3422 (Ont. C.A.). [FN11]. However, in R. v. Cavan, 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449, 1999 CarswellOnt 3480 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2000] 1 S.C.R. viii, 2000 CarswellOnt 1152, 2000 CarswellOnt 1153, 2000 CarswellOnt 1154, 2000 CarswellOnt 1155 (S.C.C.), the accused was held to have opened the door to such a line of cross-examination by attributing his detailed recollection of events to reading disclosure materials. [FN12]. 2001 SCC 75, 2001 CarswellBC 2500, 2001 CarswellBC 2501 (S.C.C.); see also: R. v. Swick, 118 C.C.C. (3d) 33, [1997] O.J. No. 3580 (Ont. C.A.). [FN13]. A Crown response to an application to exclude evidence may consist of multiple attempts to minimize the Charter's force, to wit: (a) there is no such Charter right; (b) if it exists, the accused has no standing to claim it; (c) if he/she had standing there was no breach; (d) if there was a breach the evidence should nevertheless be admitted. [FN14]. See, for example, R. v. Vandenberghe, 96 C.C.C. (3d) 371, 1995 CarswellOnt 1806, [1995] O.J. No. 243 (Ont. C.A.). [FN15]. R. v. Markadonis, [1935] S.C.R. 657, 64 C.C.C. 41, 1935 CarswellNS 50 (S.C.C.). [FN16]. Anyone with a serious interest in this line of cross-examination should examine the judgment of the Australian High Court in Palmer v. R. (1998), 96 A. Crim. R. 213, 2 A.L.J.R. 254 (Australia H.C.). The judgments of McHugh J. and Kirby J. are particularly interesting, the former because it offers a limited defence for such cross-examination, the latter because it neatly summarizes the reasons for and against permitting such cross- examination. [FN17]. Toohey v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1965] A.C. 595, [1965] 1 All E.R. 506, 49 Cr. App. R. 148 (U.K. H.L.) at 607 [A.C.]. [FN18]. Boucher, supra, note 1 at 27 [S.C.R.]. [FN19]. See, for example, R. v. Lee, (sub nom. R. v. Siu) 124 C.C.C. (3d) 301, 1998 CarswellBC 838 (B.C. C.A.); R. v. B. (R.B.), 2001 BCCA 14, 152 C.C.C. (3d) 437, 2001 CarswellBC 18 (B.C. C.A.). [FN20]. R. v. Munroe, 96 C.C.C. (3d) 431, 38 C.R. (4th) 68, 1995 CarswellOnt 19 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1995] 4 S.C.R. 53, 43 C.R. (4th) 366, 102 C.C.C. (3d) 383, 1995 CarswellOnt 989, 1995 CarswellOnt 1183 (S.C.C.) (in which the S.C.C. described the Crown address as "repugnant"). [FN21]. R. v. Pitt, 109 C.C.C. (3d) 488, 1996 CarswellNB 368 (N.B. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 211 N.R. 319 (note), 188 N.B.R. (2d) 80 (note), 480 A.P.R. 80 (note), [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 494 (S.C.C.). [FN22]. R. v. Munroe, supra, note 20 at 464 [C.C.C.]. [FN23]. R. v. Peavoy, 117 C.C.C. (3d) 226, 9 C.R. (5th) 83, 1997 CarswellOnt 2689 (Ont. C.A.) at 233-235 [C.C.C.]. [FN24]. See, for example: R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, 8 C.R. (4th) 277, 68 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 1991 CarswellAlta 192, 1991 CarswellAlta 559 (S.C.C.); R. v. Egger, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451, 21 C.R. (4th) 186, 82 C.C.C. (3d) 193, 1993 CarswellAlta 410, 1993 CarswellAlta 561 (S.C.C.); R. v. Chaplin, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727, 36 C.R. (4th) 201, 96 C.C.C. (3d) 225, 1995 CarswellAlta 72 (S.C.C.); R. v. McQuaid, (sub nom. R. v. Dixon) [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, (sub nom. R. v. Dixon) 122 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 13 C.R. (5th) 217, 1998 CarswellNS 7, 1998 CarswellNS 8, [1998] S.C.J. No. 17 (S.C.C.); R. v. Curragh Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537, 113 C.C.C. (3d) 481, 5 C.R. (5th) 291, [1997] S.C.J. No. 33, 1997 CarswellNS 88, 1997 CarswellNS 89 (S.C.C.); R. v. Carosella, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80, 112 C.C.C. (3d) 289, 4 C.R. (5th) 139, [1997] S.C.J. No. 12, 1997 CarswellOnt 85, 1997 CarswellOnt 86 (S.C.C.); R. v. Shirose, (sub nom. R. v. Campbell) [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565, 133 C.C.C. (3d) 257, 24 C.R. (5th) 365, 1999 CarswellOnt 948, 1999 CarswellOnt 949, [1999] S.C.J. No. 16 (S.C.C.). [FN25]. Report of the Criminal Justice Review Committee (Ontario, 1998); Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (G. Arthur Martin, Chair) (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 1993) (hereinafter, "Martin Committee Report"). [FN26]. See, for example, The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook (hereinafter FPS Deskbook), Part V, Chapter 18. The FPS Deskbook can be found on the website of the Department of Justice, at http://canada.justice.ca under "Publications". [FN27]. In R. v. Stinchcombe, supra, note 24 at 339 [S.C.R.], Justice Sopinka called the failure to make full disclosure "a very serious breach of professional ethics". [FN28]. See, for example, R. v. Greganti, 142 C.C.C. (3d) 77, 2000 CarswellOnt 442, [2000] O.J. No. 395 (Ont. S.C.J.). [FN29]. Krieger v. Law Society (Alberta), 2000 ABCA 255, 2000 CarswellAlta 1014, [2000] A.J. No. 1129 (Alta. C.A.), leave to appeal allowed, 2001 CarswellAlta 714, 2001 CarswellAlta 715 (S.C.C.). [FN30]. Pity the poor Crown counsel who was the subject of the comments of Justices McLachlin and Major in R. v. Curragh, supra, note 24 at 588-589 [S.C.R.]. [FN31]. 149 C.C.C. (3d) 193, 39 C.R. (5th) 356, 2000 CarswellOnt 4573 (Ont. C.A.). [FN32]. R. v. Walker, 90 C.C.C. (3d) 144, 1994 CarswellOnt 898 (Ont. C.A.) at 153-154 [C.C.C.] ("Crown counsel was not entitled to conjure up ... a horror story in the absence of any evidence"); R. v. Rose, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262, 129 C.C.C. (3d) 449, 20 C.R. (5th) 246, 1998 CarswellOnt 4392, 1998 CarswellOnt 4393 (S.C.C.) at 321 [S.C.R.]. [FN33]. (Sub nom. R. c. Denton) 2001 SCC 34, (sub nom. R. v. Peters) 156 C.C.C. (3e) 222, 2001 CarswellQue 982, 2001 CarswellQue 983 (C.SC.), confirmant (sub nom. R. v. Peters) 140 C.C.C. (3e) 52, 33 C.R. (5e) 83, 1999 CarswellQue 3022 (C.A. Qué.). [FN34]. R. v. Curragh Inc., supra, note 24. [FN35]. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391, 118 C.C.C. (3d) 443, 10 C.R. (5th) 163, 1997 CarswellNat 1385, 1997 CarswellNat 1386, [1997] S.C.J. No. 82 (S.C.C.). [FN36]. See, for example, The FPS Deskbook, supra, note 26 at Part III, Chapter 10. [FN37]. In R. v. Leipert, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 375, 47 C.R. (4th) 31, 1996 CarswellBC 798 (B.C. C.A.) at 378 [C.C.C.], affirmed 4 C.R. (5th) 259, 112 C.C.C. (3d) 385, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281, 1997 CarswellBC 101, 1997 CarswellBC 102 (S.C.C.). [FN38]. R. v. Ahluwahlia, supra, note 31. [FN39]. Ibid. at 213 [C.C.C.]. [FN40]. Indeed the Martin Committee Report, supra, note 25, stated, at 39, "the Crown is entitled to rely on the police, as the investigative source of most of the information relevant to the guilt or innocence of an accused person, to bring forward accurately and completely whatever has a bearing on the case". [FN41]. Report of the Commission on Proceedings involving Guy Paul Morin (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 1998) vol. 2 at 1136-1138; The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow (2001), www.gov.mb.ca/justice/sophonow/arnold/recommend.html#1. [FN42]. 2001 SCC 66, 46 C.R. (5e) 1, 2001 CarswellQue 2187, 2001 CarswellQue 2188 (C.S.C.) [FN43]. R. c. Proulx, 76 C.C.C. (3e) 316, 1992 CarswellQue 265 (C.A. Qué.). [FN44]. Proulx, supra, note 42 at para. 42 [SCC]. [FN45]. It should be noted that the focus of Regan v. R., currently on reserve in the S.C.C. (S.C.C. #27541), is the contention that Crown counsel was too involved in the investigation. Conducting inappropriate investigations may also lead to difficulties, as evidenced by R. v. Kirkham, 126 C.C.C. (3d) 397, 17 C.R. (5th) 250, 1998 CarswellSask 435 (Sask. Q.B.). [FN46]. To be perfectly accurate in the extradition context, the cases went south; the fugitives didn't. [FN47]. United States v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616, 2001 SCC 21, 152 C.C.C. (3d) 294, 41 C.R. (5th) 100, 2001 CarswellOnt 962, 2001 CarswellOnt 963, [2001] S.C.J. No. 18 (S.C.C.), reconsideration refused 2001 CarswellOnt 2045, 2001 CarswellOnt 2046 (S.C.C.); United States v. Cobb, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587, 2001 SCC 19, 152 C.C.C. (3d) 270, 41 C.R. (5th) 81, 2001 CarswellOnt 964, 2001 CarswellOnt 965, [2001] S.C.J. No. 20 (S.C.C.), reconsideration refused 2001 CarswellOnt 2045, 2001 CarswellOnt 2046 (S.C.C.); United States v. Cobb, (sub nom. United States of America v. Tsioubris) [2001] 1 S.C.R. 613, (sub nom. United States of America v. Tsioubris) 2001 SCC 20, (sub nom. United States of America v. Tsioubris) 152 C.C.C. (3d) 292, 2001 CarswellOnt 960, 2001 CarswellOnt 961, [2001] S.C.J. No. 21 (S.C.C.), reconsideration refused 2001 CarswellOnt 2045, 2001 CarswellOnt 2046 (S.C.C.). [FN48]. Martin Committee Report, supra, note 25 at 114. [FN49]. FPS Deskbook, supra, note 26 at Part IV, Chapter 13, p. iv-13-3. [FN50]. See, for example, R. v. Pangman (2000), 46 W.C.B. (2d) 354 (Man. Q.B.), where the trial judge raised the issue of an "overloaded" indictment of her motion. [FN51]. For example, ss. 718.2(d) and (e), and 742ff of the Criminal Code. [FN52]. The last bastion of lengthy carceral sentences for drug offenders, the Alberta Court of Appeal, has: see R. v. Rahime, 2001 ABCA 203, 156 C.C.C. (3d) 349, 2001 CarswellAlta 1019 (Alta. C.A.). [FN53]. As quoted in J.L.J. Edwards, The Law Officers of the Crown (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1964) at 215. [FN54]. Proulx v. A.G. Quebec, supra, note 42 at para. 33 [SCC]. [FN55]. For a helpful discussion on the relationship between independence and accountability, see Kaufman, Review of the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service, Final Report, (Halifax: Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service, 1999) at 11-21. [FN56]. FPS Deskbook, supra, note 26 at Part III, Chapter 10. [FN57]. FPS Deskbook, supra, note 26 at Part III, Chapter 8. [FN58]. R. v. Larosa, [2000] O.J. No. 976 (Ont. S.C.J.). END OF DOCUMENT Beginning of Document *

Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. Sheila Steele, injusticebusters.com If you hold the mouth of Truth, It will burst out its rib-cage. Somali proverb Publisher : Sheila Steele Got something to say about this or any other stories on this site? Go to injusticebustersblog Participate! injusticebusters court advice : How to walk yourself through the justice system   Why you should dump your preliminary hearing (written July 1998 and still valid)   Sermonette: The Naked Truth -- (You will find links to many more sermonettes in the sidebar on this page Another target of Dueck's malice: : Wilf Hathway Our activism contributed greatly to the good vibes which happened around the civil trial. Index to the stories on this website This is not regularly updated so if you are looking for a particular story and you have a name or keyword, please use the site search engine(at the bottom of the page) which IS regularly updated Index to Saskatoon Police stories This is a pretty good scrapbook for the 1998-2002 period. Inquiry into the malicious prosecution of David Milgaard untanling 36 years of Saskatchewan police and Crown misconduct: : Opening day 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |   Stephen Williams: Canadian writer subject to Stasi-like treatment by Canadian police Terry Arnold: : Snitch a suicide? RCMP scenario stings: Brian Hutchinson starts digging Gary wells: Faulty eye-witness testimony Tulia, Texas Gilmer, Texas Willie Upshaw Wrongfully convicted in Canada Foster Parent false accusations Martensville Don Smith obscenity trial: an obscene conviction James Lockyer Hurricane Carter Johnny Cochran speaks up for Bill Sampson Vopnis Abdulai Mohamed Nfld Defamation story: Wanda Young Racism in the Federal Civil Service     The Terrible Story behind the Atif Rafay and Sebastian Burns convictions       Trial set for June 15 We know part of this disclosure is a forged statement and perjured affidavit from a Winnipeg cop               The Crown is still fighting Fred Poirier -- and they are losing. Secret Commissions Case from Northern B.C.     2005: In the United States the proven wrongful convictions just keep coming at us!   Brandon Morin: Convicted in Oregon of rapes which did not happen This website has good information about Measure 11 -- Oregon's Mandatory Sentencing requirements which have been in place since 1994. In this case we see how the combination of a flawed grand jury system and prosecutors who seek not justice but convictions is a recipe for wrongful convictions.   Canadians who have been wrongfully convicted because of improper investigations combined with zealous Crown A round-up of wrongful convictions in Canada Robert Baltovich Michael Burns Sebastian Burns Rodney Cain Wilbert Coffin (hanged, 1953) Jason Dix Jim Driskell Jody Druken Randy Druken Hugues Duguay Michel Dumont Peter Frumusa Walter Gillespie and Robert Mailman Clayton Johnson Yvonne Johnson Herman Kaglik Darren Koehn Kulaveeringsam "Kulam" Karthiresu Stephen Leadbeater Donald Marshall Chris McCullough Michael McTaggart Felix Michaud David Milgaard Guy Paul Morin Shannon Murrin Jamie Nelson Greg Parsons Benoit Proulx Atif Rafay Louise Reynolds Thomas Sophonow Gary Staples Billy Taillefer Steven Truscott Joe Warren Leon Walchuk   AIDWYC Innocence Project (Canada) Innocence Project (U.S.) Northwest Law Center on Wrongful Convictions   Kirstin Lobato Jeffrey Scott Hornoff Willie Upshaw Hurricane Carter Guildford 4 Birmingham 6 Amirault Houston U.S. wrongful convictions: Exonerateed Kirk Bloodsworth Laurence Adams Ludrate Burton Stephen Cowans Wilton Dedge Albert Johnson Kenneth Marsh Dwayne McKinney James Bernard Parker Peter Reilly Peter Rose Sylvester Smith Clifford St. Joseph John Stoll Marty Tankleff Wilton Dedge Ray Krone   Still working on it: Dennis Deschaine Dennis Perry Tim Sandfort         Blogging Blogging has been in the news. It is the new, trendy thing with 40,000 new blogs being created each day. I established a blog for this website last September and it is now "taking off." These are a few of the pages with ongoing discussions. Tasering Mary Lutz Saskatchewan Centenary Quint Blog discussion Rotten apples in the Saskatoon Police Blogging for choice Michael Cardamone witch hunt Implement recommendations of public inquiries Stealing from the poor Vancouver's killer cops Tisdale rapists appeal Winnipeg police misdeeds Milgaard Inquiry Chief Sabo: can he be trusted? The Old Boys' Club Must Go! Vancouver activists John Hudak: Falsely accused mountie City of intolerance Constable Larry Lockwood: Exciteable! Eric Cline This is a great way for like-minded people to communicate and share our views. It is easier than making a website and marginally more difficult than a forum. People who want to contribute simply have to punch the "comment" link and they will be taken to a page with a box which allows them to write their comment, preview and post it. It takes a while for the comment to show up and some people get impatient and repost. That's fine, I trash the duplicate posts and no harm done. Please, please give it a try. The internet is distinguished from other media in that it is really and truly interactive. Blogging makes it possible to express your viewpoint even if you don't have a computer. You can go to the library or a friend's place or an internet cafe. Once you've mastered the basics (and believe me, if I can do it, you can do it) you will be participating in one of the most democratic -- and potentially powerful -- media the world as we know it has ever seen. Come on. Don't be shy. Join the Weblog World! -- Sheila Steele, March 20, 2005 Toronto Police paid out $30M in secretly resolved claims over last five years