Wrongful Convictions.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

Wrongful Convictions 9iii.not permit experts to use demonstrably misleading languagesuch as “consistent with” and “match” in the context offorensic hair comparisons. 22B. The Driskell InquiryThe indictment of forensic microscopy did not stop there. In 1990, inManitoba, James Driskell was charged, convicted and imprisoned for firstdegree murder, in part because of hair evidence. An inquiry into his casewas commissioned in 2005, and in 2007, a retired Chief Justice fromOntario ultimately concluded that Driskell had been wrongfullyconvicted. 23 Though his report was issued well after the Manitoba ForensicEvidence Review Committee completed its mission, its discussion of hairmicroscopy shows the context in which the Review took place.Driskell had been charged with the murder of Perry Dean Harder. Thecase for the Crown was largely circumstantial, but had been contaminatedwith unsavoury witnesses, inexplicable non-disclosure of critical evidenceby the prosecutors and police, and a heated out-of-court confrontationbetween the lead prosecutor and counsel for one of the Crown witnesses.To make matters worse, the prosecution had tendered and relied uponhair comparison evidence that was said to implicate the accused in theoffence. 24At trial, the Crown called an RCMP expert, Tod Christianson, totestify with respect to the hair evidence.In 1990-91, Mr. Christianson was one of about five hair and fibre examiners inthe Winnipeg Laboratory of the RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services (“RCMPFLS”). He had been a hair and fibre examiner for approximately seven years(including one year as a trainee), and had worked on almost 470 prior hair andfibre cases. He had presented microscopic hair comparison evidence in 26previous cases. 25Seemingly he had all the qualifications and experience that a prosecutorwould want.Mr. Christianson testified that three of the questioned hairs from theaccused’s van (said to have been used in the murder) were microscopically22Ibid at 338-343 of the report and at 47 of the Executive Summary.23Driskell Report, supra note 9 at 1.24Ibid at 146-149.25Ibid at 147.