PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Following a brief recess this morning, Ontario's highest court unanimously directed the acquittal Bernard Doyle has been waiting anxiously for for almost three decades.
The panel of three justices did not buy Crown Counsel Michael Bernstein's confusing position that instead of an acquittal, the Court should order a new trial for him - suggesting that there is evidence of guilt - but don't worry My Lords, after you order the new trial we will 'stay' the charge! (my words. HL) - as if an acquittal and a 'stay' were the same thing!
Nor did the Court seem impressed (indeed, I was flabbergasted) when Bernstein attempted to use evidence given by disgraced, discredited, subsequently dis-doctored (my word for being thrown out of the medical profession in Ontario) Charles Smith at the trial, in his bid to deny Mr. Doyle an acquittal. As one of my colleagues summed it up for me: "In the year 2023, The Crown relied on Charles Smith. There is the lead!"
The heart of the appeal is set out in the opening paragraphs' of an appellant's brief which was unsealed earlier today after the unanimous verdict was delivered:
On August 16, 1996, Tyler Cunningham, a 17 month old boy, was fatally injured in his home in Cambridge, Ontario. He died the next day. On August 26, 1996, the Appellant, his stepfather, was charged with manslaughter. On December 18, 1997, after a trial before Mr. Justice Glithero and a jury in the Ontario Court (General Division), the Appellant was convicted as charged. On February 13, 1998, he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in addition to 6 months pre-trial custody. The Appellant did not appeal his conviction, and served his sentence.
2. In 2010, Tyler’s case was reviewed by a Medical Panel set up as a result the Goudge Inquiry. Their report on the case was released in 2011. The Appellant then applied for an extension of time to file an appeal of his conviction. On January 30, 2014, Rosenberg J.A. granted the extension. Four experts, two forensic pathologists, a forensic neuropathologist and a biochemical engineer were retained by the Appellant and the Respondent to provide their opinions on the case. All agreed that Tyler could have incurred his fatal head injuries from a short fall as the Appellant had described.
3. This appeal is based on fresh evidence. The fresh evidence includes the four new expert opinions, the reports of the two pathologists and two hospital doctors called at trial, documents which set out how the Appellant’s case came to be reviewed, a transcript of the 911 call made after Tyler’s collapse, the Appellant’s affidavit sworn in 2022 and the Respondent’s cross-examination of him.
It is submitted that the evidence is of such a nature that a verdict of acquittal should be entered on appeal.
Outside of court, looking visibly moved, Bernard Doyle, now 50, uttered: "For the first time in my life I can actually hold my head up high."
In a brief interview, he added: "I was really nervous and afraid (before the decision exonerating him was released), he said, adding that when he saw everybody in his corner (referring to Lawyer James Lockyer and his many supporters from Innocence Canada), I felt confident and happy."
As I said, this was a truly great day.
Exonerated at long last.
All the best to Mr. Doyle, and congrats to Innocence Canada;
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
--------------------------------------------------------
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. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html 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;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
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;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
---------------------------------------------------------
