In 1966, the Supreme Court decided
to hear the case of Steven Truscott - not to determine
Truscott's innocence or guilt but simply whether
or not he deserved a new trial. Much of the Supreme
Court's hearing was a war of medical experts over
the validity of the medical evidence at the first
trial - especially stomach contents and time of
death. The judges also found Truscott's testimony
confused and vague.
The country's top judges rule 8 -
1 against Truscott getting a new trial.
The lone dissenting voice came from
Justice Emmett Hall. Below are some excerpts from
his decision:
The trial in general: "Having
considered the case fully, I believe that the conviction
should be quashed and a new trial directed. I take
the view that the trial was not conducted according
to law. Even the guiltiest criminal must be tried
according to law. That does not mean that I consider
Truscott guilty or innocent. The determination of
guilt or innocence was a matter for the jury and
for the jury alone ...following a trial conducted
according to law."
"...I find
that there were grave errors in the trial brought
about principally by the Crown counsel's method
in trying to establish guilt and by the learned
trial Judge's failure to appreciate that the course
being followed by the Crown would necessarily involve
the jury being led away from an objective appraisal
of the evidence for and against the prisoner."
"It was inevitable
that this horrible crime would arouse the indignation
of the whole community. It was inevitable too that
suspicion should fall on Truscott, the last person
known to have been seen with Lynne in the general
vicinity of the place where her body was found.
The law has formulated certain principles and safeguards
to be applied in the trial of a person accused of
a crime and has throughout the centuries insisted
on these principles and safeguards being observed.
In the great majority of cases adherence to these
fundamentals is not difficult but in a case like
the present one, when passions are aroused and the
Court is dealing with a crime which cries out for
vengeance, then comes the time of testing..."
Jocelyn Gaudet:
"The Crown approached the
prosecution on the theory...that... Truscott had
planned to take Jocelyn Gaudet into Lawson's bush
to have some improper relations with her and when
she failed to show he was so intent on taking some
girl to Lawson's bush that evening that when Lynne
Harper came to him in the school yard he seized
upon this accidental meeting to persuade her to
go with him and to her death ... There was no suggestion
in the evidence of those who saw Truscott and Lynne
together in the school yard from which it could
be inferred that Truscott was trying to induce or
persuade Lynne to go anywhere with him."
Bicycle tire
tracks: "At the trial
the Crown led evidence to show that Truscott entered
the tractor trail with Lynne. This was evidence
by ... the very first witness called by the crown,
that on June 13th ... he ... photographed ... bicycle
tire marks which corresponded with the tread on
the tires of Truscott's bicycle... The marks were
made when the soil ... was wet and there had been
no rain in the area ... throughout the period June
1st to June 9th ...The learned Judge should have
charged the jury in the light of the evidence of
the meteorologist ...that they must exclude from
their consideration the evidence relating to these
bicycle tire marks. This he failed to do..."
Time of death:
"More important, however,
in so far as Truscott is concerned is the submission
that the evidence failed to establish that her death
occurred prior to 7:45 p.m. on June 9th. If she
was murdered later than this time, Truscott could
not be the guilty person. It is as simple as that...
."
"The jury
should have been told that as between Dr. Penistan
and Dr. Brown, if the evidence of Dr. Brown left
a reasonable doubt in their minds as to the time
of death, they must acquit. No jury can be told
that they have to accept the evidence of one witness
or that of another."
Penile lesions:
"... one aspect in particular
of the medical evidence heard in this Court ...
has an important bearing on the case. It is the
evidence relating to the penile lesions. At the
trial the Crown ... argued that the sores on Truscott's
penis as described by Drs. Addison and Brooks had
been caused by raped or forced intercourse...Particular
stress was placed on Dr. Brooks' evidence that in
his opinion the sores on Truscott's penis indicated
"a very inexpert attempt at penetration."
Dr. Brooks' evidence on this point was inadmissible.
He was testifying as an expert as to a matter that
was not in his special knowledge and the evidence
was prejudicial to the prisoner."
Final Thoughts: "I
appreciate that after nearly eight years many difficulties
will be met with if a new trial is held both on
the part of the Crown and on the part of the accused,
but these difficulties are relatively insignificant
when compared to Truscott's fundamental right to
be tried according to law."
|
