Wrongful Convictions.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

8 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1Second:the strongest conclusion that can be drawn is that a hair or fibre is consistent withhaving come from a particular source. The second strongest conclusion is that ahair or fibre could have come from a particular source. … Another conclusionwhich is sometimes drawn is that a hair or fibre cannot be excluded as havingcome from the same source. 16None of these conclusions identifies the source of the unknown hair. Thenuances developed by scientists in this area are easily miscommunicatedand misapprehended by lay triers of fact; in this case, the language usedcontributed to Morin’s wrongful conviction. 17And third: the experts failed to adequately communicate thelimitations on their findings to both the prosecutors and the court. 18In these circumstances, Commissioner Kaufman noted cautionarywords from the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that expertevidence can easily be misused and distort the fact-finding process.Famously, that Court had said:Dressed up in scientific language which the jury does not easily understand andsubmitted through a witness of impressive antecedents, this evidence is apt to beaccepted by the jury as being virtually infallible and having more weight than itdeserves. 19In the result, Commissioner Kaufman recommended that trial judgesshould:i. undertake a more critical analysis of hair comparisonevidence, and where it only shows that an accused cannot beeliminated, exclude the evidence; 20ii. if admitted, charge the jury that as the trier of fact it shouldnot be overwhelmed by any aura of scientific authority orinfallibility of the evidence, and explain the limitations thatshould be applied to the expert’s findings; 21 and16Ibid at 88 [emphasis in original].17Ibid at 88-89 and 101-110.18Ibid at 103.19R v Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9 at 21, 114 DLR (4th) 419 [Mohan].20Morin Report, supra note 13 at 311.21Ibid at 328.