articles: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
By Donna Laframboise, Toronto Star, 3 August 1992
Suppose you're going about your business one day, when suddenly the police arrive, arrest you, and charge you with murder.
Suppose you're then refused bail and spend the next mine months in jail. After a five week trial, you are acquitted by a jury and think your nightmare is over.
But it isn't. Two-and-a-half years later, the Supreme Court rules that the judge who heard your case erred while giving instructions to the jury. In a rare move, it orders a retrial.
suppose your second trial reveals:
Suppose it's your life hanging in the balance. And that, despite all of these appalling irregularities, the second jury finds you guilty.
This is what has happened to Guy-Paul Morin, who was convicted last week of murdering his 9-year-old next door neighbour, Christine Jessop, in 1984.
I know it's unwise to second-guess a jury, to criticize from afar a decision that followed a nine-month trial, eight days of deliberation, and was doubtless made in good conscience by decent, honest people. But something feels terribly wrong here.
This case has revealed shameful inadequacies in the day-to-day operation of our criminal justice system. Many of the police and associated personnel have come out looking downright incompetent. They seem not to be very concerned about the fact that theirs isn't just any job. That when they get careless, the innocent may be convicted and murderers may go free.
To be fair, the judge specifically told jurors that it wasn't their responsibility to establish guidelines for criminal investigations. Their role was simply to decide Guy-Paul Morin's guilt or innocence.
But now that the jury has made its decision, some hard questions remain:
As long as these issues remain outstanding, we should all pray that we're never accused of having committed a serious crime in this country.