Reference no: EM133943571

Question

In the scenario below, discuss the miscarriages of justice/causes of John's wrongful conviction. Think about the contribution of different actors in the wrongful conviction. After, connect this to a conversation of overturning John's wrongful conviction, the decision by the appellate courts and the Crown,

One Friday evening, John Doe, a young Black man, decided to stay home after completing an extension course. After a long day, he thought it would be better to stay at home, where he lived with his mother and sister, Jane. At 11:58 pm, four men tried to enter a nightclub without paying cover. After a fight broke out, one of the owners hit one of the men in the head with a bottle before kicking them out. About an hour later, three men came back and shot and killed one of the owners, leaving the other owner with severe wounds. Both owner's partners (Jill and Jay) were present at the scene of the crime but were not injured. One of the partners, Jill, identified Jane's boyfriend, Joe. Joe was known to the owner's and observed by other eyewitnesses as one of the men who was involved in the fight and as one of the gunmen. Jill did not recognize the second gunman, but Jay stated that they kept their eye on the second shooter for approximately 16 seconds. Jay and other witnesses said that the second shooter had two-inch braids. The owner who survived had noted the license plate number of the car in which the shooters escaped, which was registered to John's mother. The police immediately put the Doe residence under surveillance, and the next day, arrested Joe and John. However, at the time of the arrest, John did not have two-inch braids. When questioned about this by the police, John reported that his hair had been buzzed for the past 18 months. After searching the home, the police found short hairs in a garbage can near John's bedroom and an electric razor with hair in it next to John's bed. John stated that he shaved his face two days earlier. However, the police were convinced that after the shooting, John came home and shaved to disguise his appearance and flushed the long hair down the toilet. Further evidence rested on the eyewitness evidence of Jay, who the police showed a photo-line up to, including John in it. Jay pointed to the photo of John to look more like the second gunman than the other 11 photos. Three weeks later, Jay was shown a second line-up and did not select John's photo. At a preliminary hearing, Jay identified Joe as the second shooter. At his trial, the Crown told the jury that the residue in the razor and in the garbage was from John's hair and that he flushed the long hairs down the toilet. The jury subsequently convicted both Joe and John of first-degree murder. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal, with emphasis on the crown's claims about the hair. An innocence-advocacy team working with John sought scientific testing of the hairs to see if they were beard/facial hair. Although the Crown opposed testing and refused to release the hair, the SCC ordered that the exhibits be released for testing. A microscopic exam showed that the hairs were facial hairs, not head hairs - which dismantled the Crown's theory. On appeal, the SCC admitted new evidence, quashed John's conviction, and ordered a new trial on the charge of first-degree murder. Eventually, the Crown withdrew the charge against John. After serving 12.5 years in custody, John was released.