Scott Watson: New Zealand; Eyewitness testimony is at the heart of the upcoming hearing in the nation's court of appeal for the man convicted of murdering friends Olivia Hope and Ben Smart after a New Year’s party in the Marlborough Sounds in 1998 who, despite always insisting he is innocent has spent 26 years in prison and been denied parole four times…"However, an upcoming hearing in the Court of Appeal will consider if the crucial eyewitness evidence of one of the last people to see Smart and Hope was reliable or should have been excluded from Watson’s trial. At Watson’s trial, water-taxi driver Guy Wallace said Watson was the mystery man who climbed on to a yacht with the pair, but this identification has come under considerable scrutiny. Wallace himself later said he was mistaken, and insisted Watson wasn’t the man on the boat with Hope and Smart, and swore Watson had been wrongly convicted. In preparation for Watson’s June 10 appeal, his lawyers got advice from two international experts in eyewitness identification, who strongly called into question police practices and the reliability of Wallace’s evidence. In response, the Crown commissioned American expert Margaret Kovera to review their findings, and provide her opinion on Wallace’s evidence. Kovera agreed with Watson’s experts, saying, “There are compelling reasons to question the reliability of the identifications in this case. “In my opinion, there is substantial evidence that there were factors present in this case that could have adversely affected the witness's ability to make a correct identification.”

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This Blog is interested in  false eye-witness identification issues because  wrongful identifications are at the heart of so many DNA-related exonerations in the USA and elsewhere - and because so much scientific research is being conducted with a goal to making the identification process more   transparent and reliable- and less subject to deliberate manipulation.  I have also reported far too many cases over the years - mainly cases lacking DNA evidence (or other forensic evidence pointing to the suspect - where the identification is erroneous - in spite of witness’s certainty that it is true - or where  the police have somehow  rigged the identification process in order to make a desired  identification inevitable."

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

————————————————————————————————

PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "After receiving the report, Crown Law said it didn’t agree with Kovera’s conclusions, and it would not be providing the Court of Appeal with a copy of it, or calling Kovera as a witness at Watson’s appeal. They did, however, provide a copy to Watson’s lawyers, who applied to the Court of Appeal for an order compelling the Crown to produce the report — which would mean the court had to consider it — arguing the Crown was suppressing relevant information. In a decision released on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal refused this, saying if Watson wanted the report introduced at the hearing, he could call Kovera as a witness — though it noted the Crown had indicated it will then cross-examine her and challenge her conclusions. As a concession, the Crown has agreed a limited summary of Kovera’s conclusions can be presented as evidence.STORY: "Crown wins right to withhold report into Scott Watson case," by Reporter Mike White, published by The Post, on  May 21, 2024."

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

PHOTO CAPTION: "Scott Watson has spent 26 years in prison, despite always claiming he is innocent of murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope."

GIST: "The Court of Appeal has ruled the Crown doesn’t have to produce a key expert report that it commissioned, at Scott Watson’s upcoming appeal.

Watson was convicted of murdering friends Olivia Hope and Ben Smart after a New Year’s party in the Marlborough Sounds in 1998.

Despite  always insisting he is innocent, Watson has spent 26 years in prison and been denied parole four times.

However, an upcoming hearing in the Court of Appeal will consider if the crucial eyewitness evidence of one of the last people to see Smart and Hope was reliable or should have been excluded from Watson’s trial.

At Watson’s trial, water-taxi driver Guy Wallace said Watson was the mystery man who climbed on to a yacht with the pair, but this identification has come under considerable scrutiny.

Wallace himself later said he was mistaken, and insisted Watson wasn’t the man on the boat with Hope and Smart, and swore Watson had been wrongly convicted.

In preparation for Watson’s June 10 appeal, his lawyers got advice from two international experts in eyewitness identification, who strongly called into question police practices and the reliability of Wallace’s evidence.

In response, the Crown commissioned American expert Margaret Kovera to review their findings, and provide her opinion on Wallace’s evidence.

Kovera agreed with Watson’s experts, saying, “There are compelling reasons to question the reliability of the identifications in this case.

“In my opinion, there is substantial evidence that there were factors present in this case that could have adversely affected the witness's ability to make a correct identification.”

After receiving the report, Crown Law said it didn’t agree with Kovera’s conclusions, and it would not be providing the Court of Appeal with a copy of it, or calling Kovera as a witness at Watson’s appeal.

They did, however, provide a copy to Watson’s lawyers, who applied to the Court of Appeal for an order compelling the Crown to produce the report — which would mean the court had to consider it — arguing the Crown was suppressing relevant information.

In a decision released on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal refused this, saying if Watson wanted the report introduced at the hearing, he could call Kovera as a witness — though it noted the Crown had indicated it will then cross-examine her and challenge her conclusions.

As a concession, the Crown has agreed a limited summary of Kovera’s conclusions can be presented as evidence.

In addition to challenging Kovera, the Crown also wants the evidence of Watson’s two eyewitness experts ruled inadmissible, meaning this would also not be used by the three judges hearing the appeal. This will be ruled on at Watson’s hearing.

The upshot is a seemingly perplexing situation where the Crown is seeking to prevent the court considering the full findings of an expert it hired and briefed, and if her evidence is heard, it will argue the conclusions are wrong.

The Crown denies it is suppressing any evidence, and agrees elements of Kovera’s report are accepted science.

However, its lawyer, Deputy Solicitor-General Madeleine Laracy, told the Court of Appeal last week the Crown was under time pressure to obtain an expert opinion on the eyewitness identification issue, and Kovera’s focus was too narrow.

 It allowed her to complete her report, but decided not to use Kovera as a witness.

Watson’s lawyer, Nick Chisnall, KC, argued the Crown was not acting as a “model litigant” in a fair, detached and objective manner.

He said it was in the interests of justice for the court to consider Kovera’s report, and it would help the judges make their decision.

But the Court of Appeal said Kovera’s report wasn’t necessary for it to determine Watson’s appeal.

It noted the Crown had already conceded Kovera’s conclusions matched those of Watson’s own experts, and allowed a summary of them; and if Watson wanted to have her full report considered, it could call Kovera as a witness."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350285395/crown-wins-right-withhold-report-scott-watson-case

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/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985

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

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.

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-12348801

——————————————————————————----