April 17: Julian Washington: Bermuda: Discredited DNA Lab Trinity DNA Solutions: (Candy Zuleger): The Royal Gazette (Reporter Sekou Hendrickson) reports that he has brought a massive wrongful conviction lawsuit against the Government of Bermuda, in a case in which, "during the 2½-week Supreme Court trial, the prosecution case relied on DNA evidence from Trinity DNA Solutions linking Mr Washington to the scene of the crime - but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council found that the DNA evidence was flawed and inaccurate, and quashed his life sentence, of which he was ordered to serve a minimum of 30 years, in October 2024...

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Mr Washington’s case was brought into question in 2022 by the Death Penalty Project, a British-based group that focuses on promoting fairness in criminal justice and protecting those who faced execution. The group cited Dan Krane, a professor of biological sciences at Wright State University in Ohio, who found “significant errors” in Trinity’s methodology and determined that the evidence should have been excluded entirely."

——————————————————

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Candy Zuleger, the founder of Trinity DNA Solutions, worked alongside the BPS on about 450 cases between 2006 and 2016, and appeared as a prosecution witness for many Supreme Court criminal cases. The Privy Council’s ruling prompted the DPP to review 273 cases that Ms Zuleger worked on, two of which — the cases of Anwar Muhammad and Kofi Dill — were deemed to have been “tainted”."

———————————————————————————

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Mr Muhammad’s attempted murder conviction was quashed last June, while Dill’s guilty plea for handling a firearm was upheld by the Court of Appeal despite the flawed evidence. Ms Zuleger voluntarily withdrew the lab’s forensic analysis accreditation in the US in 2018 and the firm was dissolved four years later. She set up a new limited liability corporation in Florida, Trinity DNA, in February 2021."

-----------------------------------------------

STORY: "Washington sues Government for $21m over wrongful conviction," by  Columnist Sekou Hendrickson, published by The Royal Gazette, on April 13,  2026.

GIST: "A man is suing the Government for more than $21 million after he was wrongfully convicted of murder and attempted murder.

Julian Washington, who was imprisoned between 2014 and 2024, accused the Government of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and constitutional breaches, as well as abuse of process and negligence.

According to a writ filed last October, Mr Washington said that he was owed $12 million for wrongful imprisonment, as well as $1,868,000 for special damages, $6 million for aggravated damages and $2 million for exemplary damages.

The suit also demands constitutional damages to be assessed by the courts.

Mr Washington was convicted in September 2014 of the murder of Stefan Burgess and attempted murder of Davano Brimmer in 2012.

During the 2½-week Supreme Court trial, the prosecution case relied on DNA evidence from Trinity DNA Solutions linking Mr Washington to the scene of the crime.

However, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council found that the DNA evidence was flawed and inaccurate, and quashed his life sentence, of which he was ordered to serve a minimum of 30 years, in October 2024.

The suit, filed against the Attorney-General, as a representative of the Government of Bermuda, said the defendant in this case was “vicariously liable” for the actions of the Bermuda Police Service, the Department of Public Prosecutions and the Government analyst’s laboratory.

The writ claimed that Mr Washington’s conviction was part of a “systematic pattern of persecution against Mr Washington by agents and servants of the Government”.

It cited “repeated use of flawed DNA evidence”, as well as a “pattern of police harassment” that included multiple “arbitrary” arrests, bad-faith detention, targeting based off assumptions of being a gang member and the “escalation of charges” from use of a firearm to murder.

The writ claimed he was prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause and with “malice,” evidenced, it alleged, by the prosecution’s “reckless indifference” to the evidence’s reliability, a pattern of discriminatory targeting and proceeding with charges despite “fundamental evidentiary deficiencies”.

The suit said that Mr Washington was owed duties of care through careful forensic analysis, verifying evidence, maintaining adequate laboratory standards and making sound prosecutorial decisions based off reliable evidence.

It claimed that the absence of such duties of care constituted negligence, while the following “reckless indifference” served as misfeasance in public office.

It added that his rights to personal liberty, a fair trial and protection from discrimination were all violated.

The writ said Mr Washington suffered “psychological and reputational harm” as a result of his experiences, as well as a “loss of dignity, relationships and life opportunities that cannot be fully compensated”.

The jury in Mr Washington’s trial heard that Mr Burgess and Mr Brimmer attended a birthday party at a home on The Glebe Road on January 8, 2012, when a man wearing a dark helmet and clothing opened fire.

The gunman then fled the scene, riding away on a waiting motorcycle.

Mr Brimmer suffered a non-fatal gunshot wound to his groin, but Mr Burgess was shot twice in the upper body and later pronounced dead at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital.

Mr Washington was later arrested for the offence and charged with murder and attempted murder, along with possessing a firearm to commit an indictable offence and handling ammunition.

He denied the charges and maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and his trial.

Mr Washington appealed his conviction, but it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Bermuda.

Mr Washington’s case was brought into question in 2022 by the Death Penalty Project, a British-based group that focuses on promoting fairness in criminal justice and protecting those who faced execution.

The group cited Dan Krane, a professor of biological sciences at Wright State University in Ohio, who found “significant errors” in Trinity’s methodology and determined that the evidence should have been excluded entirely.

Candy Zuleger, the founder of Trinity DNA Solutions, worked alongside the BPS on about 450 cases between 2006 and 2016, and appeared as a prosecution witness for many Supreme Court criminal cases.

The Privy Council’s ruling prompted the DPP to review 273 cases that Ms Zuleger worked on, two of which — the cases of Anwar Muhammad and Kofi Dill — were deemed to have been “tainted”.

Mr Muhammad’s attempted murder conviction was quashed last June, while Dill’s guilty plea for handling a firearm was upheld by the Court of Appeal despite the flawed evidence.

Ms Zuleger voluntarily withdrew the lab’s forensic analysis accreditation in the US in 2018 and the firm was dissolved four years later.

She set up a new limited liability corporation in Florida, Trinity DNA, in February 2021.

A spokesman for Forensica Legal, which filed this claim, confirmed that the case is still in front of the Supreme Court but could not confirm on record when it will next appear.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the Government had received the claim and is engaging with it through the appropriate legal process.

He said the Government was not in a position to comment on the specific legal proceedings as the matter is presently before the court, but said: “The Ministry of Justice remains committed to upholding the rule of law and delivering fair, transparent and accessible justice to all.”

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.royalgazette.com/court/news/article/20260413/julian-washington-sues-government-for-21m-over-wrongful-conviction/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.   Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

Derek Bromley and much more: Will South Australia become a pariah among states that value the rule of law, due process and the compelling need to rectify wrongful Convictions? My comments on a letter from Dr. Bob Moles, a legal scholar and leader in the ever-lasting battle against wrongful convictions in Australia and elsewhere, to the Premier and Attorney General of South Australia. (HL)... "Over the years I have never seen a government which has protected them from scrutiny and accountability, as South Australia has protected, and continues to protect notorious former Chief Forensic Pathologist Colin Manock for example - even though they have been aware of the truth of his mountainous flaws for years (or should have known) - while people like Derek Bromley, whose innocence was clearly confirmed by science, remained in prison for years unprotected, by the law and the officials sworn to uphold it."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Over the past 17 years I have written about many flawed pathologists beginning when I was at my desk at the Toronto Star and Charles Smith came  into my life. Since then I  have written about other pathologists in various parts of the world  for their lack of qualifications, their incompetence  and the harm they have caused to innocent men and women, their families, and their criminal justice systems. Over the years I have never seen a government which has protected them   from   scrutiny and accountability, as South Australia has protected, and continues to protect  notorious former Chief Forensic Pathologist Colin Manock for example  - even though they have been aware of the truth of his mountainous flaws for years  (or should have known) -  while  people  like  Derek Bromley, whose innocence was clearly confirmed by science, remained in prison for years unprotected, by the law and the officials sworn to uphold it. Prosecutor's mislead judges about Manock's flaws, true twisted nature, tainted character, and wanting qualification year after year, long after they had been put on notice, and still will not admit in court, what they so clearly must affirm: 'That the conviction of Mr Bromley had been improperly obtained and that it should be overturned; Will that happen? I truly hope so.  Yes, he is on parole - but that's not real freedom for an innocent man.  Forty years in prison!  His case calls out for an appeal, for  exoneration in the most visceral sense - and  for the opportunity  for Derek Bromley to finally  tell the world his  story. But don't hold your breath!  It's hard to think that South Australia will abandon its  hostility  to fair trial and rectification of miscarriages of justice - even though its blemished history of injustice   threatens to make the it  a pariah among civilized states. By contrast, Dr.  Moles notes in the letter that,  "(T)he US Registry of Exonerations records 3,782 exonerations since 1989. Up to November 2025 there had been 608 successful appeals resulting from referrals by the UK CCRC. The Canadian Registry of Wrongful Convictions records 90 such cases. In addition, the UK has had to overturn over 900 criminal convictions arising from what has become known as the Post Office Scandal. It had to legislate to enable the convictions to be set aside without a referral to the appeal court." These nation's have bitten the bullet, even though that bullet  has often exposed the  respective government  to criticism and electoral risk. Moreover, Dr. Moles gives other examples of massive harm that government's have had to address - and have addressed (unlike South Australia), noting that, "As a result of misconduct by forensic technicians at the Massachusetts Crime laboratory over 32,000 convictions were overturned. In the UK more recently some 1,600 prosecutions were abandoned due to non-disclosure issues." His message is clear: "Taking ownership of the problem and engaging in meaningful rectification will put an end to the continuing damage to the lives of victims and to the potential damage to the professional reputations of those who would prefer to kick the can down the road." His proposal to the top officials is also clear. Take advantage of the arrival of a newly appointed Director of Publications to demonstrate to the world that South Australia is able to change it's deeply rooted 'spots,' by appointing  a special counsel who, I suspect, would be able to  act strongly, deeply and independently before a new Director of Public Prosecutions (subject to  political pressures) is appointed. The appointment of a special counsel with broad powers  would  signal a willingness of the government to address the damaging  fallout of the Manock years, begin the process of reform, and help  bring the  justice to Derek Bromley, and so many others, that they deserve. So many others? Dr Moles: "Our previous submission explained that Dr Manock claimed to have given evidence to help secure over 400 criminal convictions and to have completed over 10,000 autopsies."

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;

---------------------------------------------

LETTER DATED 3 April 2026; Addressed to  the Premier annd Attorney-General of South Australia: 

GIST: Dear Premier and Attorney-General: Dr Manock and the case of Derek Bromley;

--------------------------------------------

Summary of key points

- Derek Bromley was convicted of murder in 1984

- Dr Colin Manock (chief forensic pathologist) was the key witness at Mr Bromley’s trial

- Prior to 1984 the Forensic Science Centre gave sworn evidence to the Supreme Court

- It stated - Dr Manock was ‘not qualified to certify cause of death’

- It stated -‘he had no expert qualifications’

- The state has a duty of disclosure to the court

- It must disclose any evidence which goes to the credibility of any state witness

- The duty is continuing – it applies after any trial and appeals have been concluded

- The true status of Dr Manock was not disclosed by the Crown at Mr Bromley’s trial.

- It was not disclosed during any of Mr Bromley’s subsequent appeals

- The inevitable conclusion is that Mr Bromley was wrongly convicted.

- The state has a duty to correct this appalling state of affairs

- It may do so by supporting a further appeal under the further appeal provisions

- Failing that, Mr Bromley may challenge his conviction by an application to a single

judge of the Supreme Court alleging that his conviction was obtained by fraud.

On 9 April 2026 The Advertiser reported that Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Martin Hinton KC was stepping down from his position, three months before the end of his term, to head overseas.

On 20 March 2023 I sent a submission to Mr Hinton regarding the Crown’s duty of

disclosure in the case of Mr Derek Bromley which was due for hearing before the High Court of Australia.

It was copied to the Premier and the Attorney-General and tabled in the

South Australian Parliament (Legislative Council). It set out the evidence and legal

principles supporting the propositions in the above ‘key points’.

Mr Bromley had been convicted of murder in 1984 and had served over 40 years in prison. 

A key witness at his trial had been Dr Colin Manock who had served as chief forensic pathologist in South Australia from 1968-1995.

 I explained that:... at the time of Mr Bromley’s trial in 1984, prosecutors knew, or ought to have known, that Dr Manock was incompetent, unqualified and his evidence was not admissible as expert evidence in legal proceedings.

I also explained that during the 40 years Mr Bromley had languished in prison, a great deal more had become known about Dr Manock and the unprecedented extent of his lack of qualifications, his incompetence and his dishonesty.

I referred to the fact that an eminent pathologist from the UK (Dr Richard Shepherd) had recently stated on national television in Australia that Dr Manock had been ‘a charlatan’ and that he had ‘gone completely rogue’ and just ‘made things up’.

Despite that, the crown’s written submission to the High Court on Mr Bromley’s appeal had stated that:

The referral is to be determined on the basis of the pathological evidence given at trial [by Dr Manock] and the use made of that evidence by the prosecution and the defence at trial.

I said in my letter to the DPP, that given what was now known about Dr Manock’s

incompetence and dishonesty, the effect of such a submission would be to mislead the court on a crucial issue.

 It would obviously be important to ‘correct the record’ during oral submissions. However, during oral submissions the DPP stated:... the body [of the deceased] had sustained blunt force trauma to the head and arms, and on anyone’s case, it was ante-mortem at trial. Dr Manock put it within the last 24 hours of life.

However, that was also misleading by not referring to the evidence on the appeal. 

Dr Lynch, the crown’s expert witness had stated that it was not possible to provide a particular point on a timeline when the injuries could have occurred. He said it was possible they could all have occurred in the postmortem period. 

The other two expert witnesses on this issue, Professor Thomas and Dr Collins, agreed with that view. 

The DPP also went on to state, ‘at trial, on anyone’s case, this man had drowned. It was not in dispute he had drowned.’

However, that was also misleading without referring to the evidence on the appeal which was as follows:

Professor Thomas: I do not believe that one can make the diagnosis of death from

drowning. There is no substantive evidence for drowning in this case. A natural cause may explain the death.

Dr Collins (who had a special interest in drowning cases): My position is that the cause of death in this case is unascertained and I do not believe it is appropriate to say that there is no doubt the death resulted from drowning.

Dr Lynch (the Crown appointed expert): I said in my report that the cause of death should be stated as undetermined or unascertained. I am not in a position to say that he drowned.

It should be noted that Professor Thomas and Dr Lynch had given similar evidence in the appeal of Henry Keogh.

 The appeal court there accepted their evidence that Dr Manock’s failure to conduct a proper autopsy had led to the conclusion that he had not established the cause of death as being by drowning.

 It is disturbing to find that the appeal court would not accept the similar findings of the same experts on that issue in Mr Bromley’s case.

My submission to the DPP in Mr Bromley’s matter referred to previous Australian legal authorities.

 They stated that the securing (or maintaining) of a conviction by officials based

on evidence known to be false or misleading is ‘an unspeakable outrage’ and could amount to ‘an extremely grave criminal offence’. 

The UK authorities have stated that it would be to ‘pervert the course of justice’ and if done in conjunction with others would amount to a ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’ which are also very serious criminal offences.

I had suggested to Mr Hinton that the appropriate position for the crown to take would be to concede that the conviction of Mr Bromley had been improperly obtained and that it should be overturned. 

The most appropriate and effective means by which that could be done

would be for the DPP to advise Mr Bromley’s legal advisors that the prosecution would make such a concession if a further appeal were to be brought.

 Mr Bromley is entitled to pursue a further appeal under the extension to the appeal provisions implemented in May 2013 in South Australia.

Unfortunately, Mr Hinton did not accede to the request for a crown concession in Mr Bromley’s matter. However, now that the appointment of a further DPP is in prospect, we should be mindful that a similar approach will be made to the new DPP when appointed.

Our previous submission explained that Dr Manock claimed to have given evidence to help secure over 400 criminal convictions and to have completed over 10,000 autopsies. 

There is also the evidence, given by the former head of the forensic science centre to the Supreme Court, that Dr Manock was ‘not qualified to certify cause of death’ and that ‘he had no expert qualifications’. 

The new DPP will of course agree with Mr Hinton that the duty of disclosure continues, even after the regular appeal process has been completed, as he

explained in his article on this topic.

That will clearly present an invidious problem for a new DPP to deal with.

However, experience has shown that wrongful convictions, are far from being rare. 

The US Registry of Exonerations records 3,782 exonerations since 1989.

 Up to November 2025 there had been 608 successful appeals resulting from referrals by the UK CCRC.

The Canadian Registry of Wrongful Convictions records 90 such cases. In addition, the UK has had to overturn over 900 criminal convictions arising from what has become known as the Post Office Scandal.

It had to legislate to enable the convictions to be set aside without a

referral to the appeal court. 

As a result of misconduct by forensic technicians at the Massachusetts Crime laboratory over 32,000 convictions were overturned.

In the UK more recently some 1,600 prosecutions were abandoned due to non-disclosure issues.

The provisions related to this issue are available at the NetK: South Australia New Right of Appeal Homepage.

The lesson to be learned from the history of such cases is that the continuation of the process of delay, denial and obfuscation will make the inevitable accountability more costly and more painful for all involved. 

Taking ownership of the problem and engaging in meaningful rectification will put an end to the continuing damage to the lives of victims and to the potential damage to the professional reputations of those who would prefer to kick the can down the road.

I respectfully request that you consider appointing a special counsel to address this issue before the new DPP is appointed and enable us to work together to determine a constructive solution to this problem.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Robert N Moles ACII (UK) LLB (Hons) (Belf) PhD (Edin)

Adjunct Associate Professor (Business, Govt and Law) Flinders University

Networked Knowledge."

----------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.   Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;

FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;