Wrongful Convictions.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

22 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1had been tendered by the Crown, relied upon by prosecuting counselduring his closing address to the jury, and was expressly relied upon by theCourt of Appeal when affirming conviction. 63 As Mr. G. got up to leave atthe end of the meeting, he turned around, paused briefly, and said in afaltering voice choked with emotion, “You know, you got the right guy tobegin with. And now I assume he’s going to get millions of dollars out ofthis!”My initial instincts were right: it had not been an easy meeting. But itshowed in very clear terms that despite the writings of some academics,wrongful convictions do involve a third tragic dimension: the family of thevictim is left twisting in the wind, not able to accept that the person theyhave grown to hate may be innocent. They are often utterly unable toundo the passionate feelings that have been built up against that person.The Forensic Evidence Review had also called into question a secondcase: that of Robert Sanderson. 64 His case was a little different, as therewas other evidence that implicated him in the murder, and ManitobaJustice announced that it was going to review the case once again to see ifthere was a basis to believe that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Thevictim’s family reacted in much the same way as in the case of Unger:Christa Zurstegge, 66, said she remains convinced that Robert Stewart Sandersonhelped with the killing of her son Stephan Zurstegge, despite the new DNAevidence that eliminates the only forensic link between Mr. Sanderson and thebloody scene where three men were beaten, shot and stabbed to death in 1996.“I’m telling you, I cannot believe this,” Ms. Zurstegge said. “This is unreal. Oursystem stinks”. 6563Unger, supra note 49 at 235 and 254. For an account of what prosecuting counsel saidin his closing address, see: R v Unger, (26 February 1992), Winnipeg, CR91-01-11124(Man QB) (transcript), online: CBC .64Sanderson, supra note 4949. Hair comparison evidence was referred to at paragraphs 3and 5 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, although, as noted at para 95, thatevidence was not raised as an area of concern on appeal. The primary issues wereseverance of accused and a Vetrovec witness (an unsavoury witness central to theCrown’s case who has an unsavoury or disreputable character: see R v Vetrovec, [1982]1 SCR 811, 136 DLR (3d) 89).65As recorded by Graeme Smith for the Globe and Mail: “Faulty analysis of hair samplessparks calls for case reviews”, The Globe and Mail, September 16, 2004, online: TheGlobe and Mail .Formatte