Background
On February 3, 1994, four men were riding in a van in the Montreal area en route to commit a computer theft. Jacques Cinous, the driver, noticed gestures made by Michaelson Vancol and another man in the van, as well as changes to the gloves Vancol and the other man were wearing, and believed that they were armed and ready to kill him. Cinous stopped the vehicle at a gas station in Montreal under the pretense that it needed windshield washer fluid, opened the rear door of the van and shot Vancol in the back of the head, killing him. At trial, Cinous claimed the killing was in self-defence. However, the jury rejected Cinous' defence and convicted him of second-degree murder.
On appeal, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled there were errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury with respect to Cinous' claim of self-defence, and ordered the conviction overturned and a new trial. The Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction.
In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law - in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions only bars an identical prosecution for the same offense, however, a different offense may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger - it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.
A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.
The Coffin affair was an event in Canadian history in which a man named Wilbert Coffin was hanged for the murder of three men. The affair started in June 1953 in Gaspésie when three men from Pennsylvania were reported missing. Their bodies were found a month later deep in the woods 60 km (37 mi) from the nearest town.
Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is a pattern of signs and symptoms displayed by a woman who has suffered persistent intimate partner violence—psychological, physical, or sexual—from her male partner. It is classified in the ICD-9 as battered person syndrome, but is not in the DSM-5. It may be diagnosed as a subcategory of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Victims may exhibit a range of behaviors, including self-isolation, suicidal thoughts, and substance abuse, and signs of physical injury or illness, such as bruises, broken bones, or chronic fatigue.
Yvonne L. Swan, also known as Yvonne Swan Wanrow, is a Sinixt Native American activist, who was once convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to probation. She is part of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Swan is known, under the surname Wanrow, for the 1972 trial concerning the shooting death of a man who had allegedly attempted to molest her son; she became a cause célèbre of the feminist and American Indian movement. Her case reached the Washington Supreme Court, where its outcome had far-reaching effects on women's self-defense and the law, and the manner in which juries interpret the behavior of a defendant, the legality of recorded conversations, and considerations for victims of sexual assault.
The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.
R v Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy Latimer. The case had sparked an intense national debate as to the ethics of what was claimed as a mercy killing. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Latimer was not cruel and unusual and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court also ruled that Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist. The prison sentence was thus upheld, although the court specifically noted that the federal government had the power to pardon him.
Morgentaler v R is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where physician Henry Morgentaler unsuccessfully challenged the prohibition of abortion in Canada under the Criminal Code. The Court found the abortion law was appropriately passed by Parliament under the laws of federalism. This was the first of three Supreme Court decisions on abortion that were brought by Morgentaler.
Robert William Pickton, also known as the Pig Farmer Killer or the Butcher, is a Canadian serial killer, serial rapist, former pig farmer and possible cannibal who is suspected of being one of the most prolific serial killers in Canadian history. After dropping out of school, Pickton left a butcher's apprenticeship to begin working full-time at his family's pig farm. He is believed to have begun his murders in the early 1990s after inheriting the farm. Arrested in 2002, he was convicted in 2007 of the second-degree murders of six women and was also the subject of a lengthy investigation that yielded evidence of numerous other murders.
Racial discrimination in jury selection is specifically prohibited by law in many jurisdictions throughout the world. In the United States, it has been defined through a series of judicial decisions. However, juries composed solely of one racial group are legal in the United States and other countries. While the racial composition of juries is not dictated by law, racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is specifically prohibited. Depending on context, the phrases "all-white jury" or "all-black jury" can raise the expectation that deliberations may be unfair.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
Mr. Big is a covert investigation procedure used by undercover police to elicit confessions from suspects in cold cases. Police officers create a fictitious grey area or criminal organization and then seduce the suspect into joining it. They build a relationship with the suspect, gain their confidence, and then enlist their help in a succession of criminal acts for which they are paid. Once the suspect has become enmeshed in the criminal gang, they are persuaded to divulge information about their criminal history, usually as a prerequisite for being accepted as a member of the organization.
John Harris Byrne is a retired Australian jurist who previously served as Senior Judge Administrator of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Having been a judge of that court since 1989, he was one of the court's most experienced judges. He was also Chair of the National Judicial College of Australia, a body which provides programs and professional development resources to judicial officers in Australia. He is now a private Commercial Arbitrator.
Christine Marie Lundy, 38, and her 7-year-old daughter Amber Grace Lundy were murdered in Palmerston North, New Zealand, on 29 August 2000. In February 2001, after a six month investigation, Christine's husband and Amber's father, Mark Edward Lundy, was arrested and charged, and in 2002, he was convicted of the murders and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.
Astley v Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651, is a leading defamation decision released by Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The case was publicized for the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the permanent injunction ordered against the defendant.
This is a list of notable overturned convictions in Canada.
In S v Jackson, an important case in South African criminal law, the Appellate Division held that a person is justified in killing in self-defence not only when he fears that his life is in danger but also when he fears grievous bodily harm. PE Linde appeared for the appellant and BG van der Walt, SC, Attorney-General OFS, for the State. The case was heard on March 8, 1963. The appellant's attorney was DA Carroll, Johannesburg.
Everett Farmer was the last person in Nova Scotia to be executed.
Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U.S. 161 (1910), was the trial of Pink Franklin for the murder of South Carolina Constable Henry H. Valentine in 1907. Franklin was a sharecropper who wished to leave his employer although his employer had advanced Franklin wages under a contract based on the so-called "peonage laws". A warrant was obtained and when Valentine came to the house, a shootout occurred, killing Valentine and injuring Franklin, his wife Patsy, and another constable who was there. The defense included claims that Franklin acted in self-defense and that the peonage laws were unjust. In appeal, the defense claimed that the make-up of the jury, all white based on the requirement that the jury be based on those who were eligible to vote, was based on unconstitutional racism in election laws stemming from the 1895 South Carolina constitution. Franklin's conviction was upheld in all appeals, including the appeal before the United States Supreme Court heard in April 1910.
