No description available.

Yes / The Bradford Innocence Project provides a university led, community supported initiative that deals with cases of wrongful conviction. The project provides students from a wide variety of academic disciplines the opportunity to research and subsequently run cases under the close supervision of academics and practitioners in the legal field.

For approximately the last fifteen years, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been mounting highly sophisticated undercover sting operations in Canada known colloquially as Mr. Big stings. These undercover operations involve multiple officers posing as members of a ruthless, powerful and wealthy criminal organization in order to trick suspects into making confessions to serious crimes, nearly always homicides. The undercover officers essentially orchestrate a chance meeting with the suspect, known operationally as the “target”, and exert their considerable influence and resources to convince him that he is being inducted into a criminal gang. The target is typically a person suspected of having committed a murder in the past, but who has never been charged due to lack of evidence. Over a period of months or weeks the undercover officers attempt to build a relationship with the target based on fear, greed, companionship, or a combination of those or other emotions. The target is given tasks to perform which appear criminal in nature, but which are actually staged crimes in which every participant is an undercover officer. The target is eventually told he must meet with the boss of the gang, the “Mr. Big” after whom the sting is named, in order for a final decision to be made on whether or not the target can join the gang. The target is told that he must confess to the previous murder of which he is suspected in order to join the gang. Sometimes the target confesses readily, other times he protests his innocence, but Mr. Big will not accept exculpatory statements. Often further inducements are offered by Mr. Big, most notably a promise to derail the investigation by using his influence over corrupt justice system participants. If the suspect admits culpability he will be charged with the crime and nearly always convicted at trial. Canadian courts have exercised virtually no control over police tactics in these cases. Defence counsel have argued against the use of the evidence on the basis of a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to the right to silence and also with regard to abuse of process. These arguments have been unsuccessful. Defence counsel have also argued unsuccessfully that the statements should be inadmissible under Canadian hearsay law. It has also been argued, equally unsuccessfully, that the undercover operators should be treated as persons-in-authority, and hence that the statements elicited from the targets should have to be proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Canadian judges have also been unwilling to allow the defence to lead expert evidence in these cases to tell the trier of fact about the possibility of false confessions. The ultimate result is that there is no control over police tactics in these stings. There has been one proven wrongful conviction as a result of these stings, that of Kyle Wayne Unger. Other wrongful convictions may come to light. Short of its outright abolition, probably the best way to control the sting and prevent wrongful convictions is to subject the statements to a formal voluntariness inquiry.

The death penalty has had many regulations placed since its first use in America to make the process more equitable, but people are still being wrongfully sentenced to die. Using a data set of 139 exonerations over a period from 1980 to 2021, the current study examined some prominent factors in wrongful death penalty convictions and how these factors have changed or endured over time. The major findings revealed that racial disparity still exists in the legal process, but it is declining. Exonerees are more likely to have three or more contributing factors (perjury or false accusation, official misconduct, false or misleading forensic evidence, et cetera) in their wrongful death penalty convictions. Official misconduct and perjury or false accusation are by far the most common reasons for a wrongful conviction. The current study also found that often, DNA is not available to test or is simply not being tested, and there is a downward trend overall in the amount of DNA testing being done. Recommendations for further improvements are discussed.

Many legal systems throughout the world have established out-of-court remedies to rectify miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions. In Canada, this extraordinary remedy is served by a government minister, who is entrusted with the assessment of claims of innocence post-conviction. While researchers have already addressed various concerns over the current conviction review process (Braiden & Brockman, 1999; Walker & Campbell, 2009; Roach, 2012a), Roach (2012b) emphasized that little is known about the applicant’s lived experience. This thesis intends to explore the underlying rationale of the current regime under section 696.1 of the Criminal Code and shed light on how the Canadian government, through the Minister of Justice addresses claims and attempts to remedy wrongful conviction. A case study of Mr. Hailemikael Fekade Kassa’s criminal case file, an applicant who consented to this study of his second-degree murder conviction in 2009, will be used to explore the challenges faced by a Canadian claimant of innocence in preparation of his post-conviction review application. This research has revealed that: (1) the Canadian conviction review process implicitly removes the responsibility for error from the conventional justice system; and (2) despite significant evidence capable of raising doubt, the applicant under study encountered great difficulty in meeting the stringent eligibility criteria. A review of the literature provides the necessary contextual information to this critical examination through a comparative study of the post-conviction review schemes operating in North Carolina, the United Kingdom, Norway and Canada. Further, this project uses Foucault’s (1991) theory of governmentality as its analytical framework to investigate the governmental technologies and rationalities securing the current objectives of the Canadian review process and to explore the effects of policy at the micro-level. Following a presentation of the major findings and brief discussions of the evidence discovered in Mr. Kassa’s file, a final analysis situates the research findings within governmentality theory and highlights their broader implications.

The majority of information related to the postprison experiences of exonerated individuals is frequently found in reports by journalists, or based on the findings of scholars on systematic factors that contribute to wrongful incarcerations. There is a lack of social science research on the unexplored meanings and essence of the postprison lived experiences of exonerees exclusively from their perspectives. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand and describe the postprison lived experiences of exonerated individuals, 1 year or longer after their prison release. The conceptual framework was guided by Tajfel's social identity theory and Becker's social reaction theory. Interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of 8 exonerated males who were released from prison 1 year or longer. The data were analyzed using van Kaam's 7-step phenomenological analysis process as modified by Moustakas. The 7 themes that emerged from the data were employment and financial challenges, negative societal reaction, broken family relationships, unresolved emotional and psychological factors, self-imposed social isolation, role of family support, and resilience. Understanding the experiences of exonerees contribute to positive social change by providing knowledge to policymakers and others in the criminal justice system to assist in creating policies to expunge the records of exonerees without the necessity of litigation. Findings from this study also provide valuable insights on the need to offer monetary compensation and social services assistance to exonerees in all U.S. states to help in their reintegration experiences as they transition into their communities.

No description available.

This thesis sets out to provide a deep analysis of the mechanisms for review of convictions in New Zealand and England after initial appeal rights are exhausted, and to identify the key areas of similarity and difference between these systems, the reasons for these differences, and their implications. The appeal systems in each jurisdiction are briefly examined, alongside the pressures and restrictions on their functioning. Particular attention is paid to the options for appeal out of time, and for revisiting appeal decisions if new material comes to light. The main discussion is of the specialist procedures for review of suspect convictions in each jurisdiction: the Royal Prerogative of Mercy process carried out by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice and the work of the English Criminal Cases Review Commission. This discussion presents the results of empirical research carried out by the author utilising the files of each of these bodies. It investigates the legal context in which each body functions, and provides an account of how each body functions in practice, by examining the circumstances in which each body will contemplate referring a matter back to an appeal court and the means by which a determination is made as to whether to do so in an individual case. In addition it examines the various factors (legal and non-legal) which impact on their work. Finally, the key features of the two systems are contrasted, with a discussion of the areas of similarity and difference, as well as the possible implications of these, in particular for reform of the New Zealand processes.

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.)" / L'étude de notre common Law révèle que les tribunaux canadiens et anglais ont constamment été appelés à décider de l'admissibilité d'éléments de preuve impliquant la participation de l'accusé à la détermination de sa culpabilité. Qu'il s'agisse des confessions obtenues auprès d'un suspect lors de l'interrogatoire policier, ou du témoignage rendu par un accusé dans le cours du processus judiciaire (par exemple lors du procès d'un complice ou d'un premier procès dont le verdict a été annulé par la cour d'appel), on constate que l'État a régulièrement tenté de prouver la culpabilité d'un accusé par le biais de ses propres aveux. On tente généralement de justifier le recours à cette méthode d'obtention de la preuve en invoquant que les aveux faits par un accusé sont de loin la meilleure preuve de sa culpabilité et donc, qu'ils aident le juge des faits à découvrir la vérité. Il appert toutefois qu'au fil des années, l'État a souvent abusé de ce pouvoir et que des condamnations ainsi obtenues l'ont parfois été au mépris des droits des accusés, notamment le droit à un procès juste et équitable et le droit encore plus fondamental de ne pas être contraint à fournir contre sa volonté une preuve de nature à établir sa culpabilité dans son propre procès. De plus, les nombreuses erreurs judiciaires mises à jour au cours de dernières années au Canada démontrent clairement que des verdicts de culpabilité ont aussi été erronément prononcés contre des accusés sur la foi de confessions qui se sont révélées plus tard être fausses. Pour cette raison, il apparaît important de déterminer si ce moyen de preuve est toujours légitime aujourd'hui, en regard de deux des grandes théories du droit pénal: la «théorie de la gestion des risques» et la «théorie de la justice» ou de l'équité du procès. De façon plus générale, cette étude cherche à répondre à la question suivante: en droit criminel canadien, la fin (recherche de la Vérité) justifie-t-elle tous les moyens employés pour la découvrir? / The study of our "common Law" reveals that the Canadian and English courts were constantly called upon in order to decide on the admissibility of elements of proof involving the participation of the defendant in the assertion of his guilt. Whether it is confessions obtained from a suspect during a police interrogation, or the testimony given by a defendant during the course ofthe legal process (for example, at the time of a trial of an accomplice or a first trial for which the verdict was cancelled by a court of appeal), we notice that the State regularly tried to prove the guilt of a defendant by way of his own statements. We generally try to justify the recourse to this method of obtaining proof by invoking that the statements made by a defendant are by far the best proof of his guilt and thus help the judge to uncover the truth. It appears, however, that over the years the State often abused this power and that ensuing convictions were sometimes obtained with a disregard of the rights of the defendants; in particular, the right to a fair trial and the right even more fundamental not to be constrained to provide against his will, a proof likely to establish his guilt in his own trial. In addition, many legal updates in the recent years in Canada c1early show that verdicts of guilt were also incorrectly pronounced against defendants on the faith of confessions which were later proved to he false. As such, it appears important to determine ifthis type ofproofretains its legitimacy today in regards to two of the great theories of criminallaw: the "Theory of Risk Management" and the "Theory of Justice" or the equity of the trial. More generally, this study seeks to answer the following question: "In Canadian criminallaw, does the end (search for the truth) justify the means used to uncover it?"

With criminal cases continuing to be exonerated across the United States, research must be done on the subject to advance current practices to reduce its occurrence in the future. This study combines county population data with the National Registry of Exonerations to analyze the contributing factors to wrongful convictions and the possible effect of population on their frequency. The objective of this study was to identify specific policy changes based on the five contributing factors to wrongful convictions that could be applied to population specific areas. The results yielded multiple patterns that are discussed thoroughly. These findings allowed the introduction of policy changes and proposals for future research.