“[776] For the reasons set out above, we are satisfied that the fresh evidence and the new material before this court have significantly undermined the strength of each of the four factual pillars of the Crown’s case. In contrast, much of that material has given added force to the evidentiary foundation of the defence case.
[786] Finally, then as now, the crime scene continues to raise serious questions about the Crown’s theory as to how this crime was committed. While the evidence does not exclude the possibility that the appellant was the killer, aspects of the scene of Lynne’s death seem inconsistent with the theory that the appellant was the perpetrator.
[787] For these reasons, dealt with in considerably more detail above, we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably convict, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result. Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of s. 696.3(3)(ii) of the Criminal Code, the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered.
[788] We wish to thank all counsel for their assistance in this unique and difficult case. We have already referred to the determination of Mr. Truscott’s counsel, who diligently pursued every possible avenue and presented their case with candour and great skill. Likewise, Crown counsel were extremely thorough and, as one would expect, candid and helpful in their presentation of the Crown’s case."
[786] Finally, then as now, the crime scene continues to raise serious questions about the Crown’s theory as to how this crime was committed. While the evidence does not exclude the possibility that the appellant was the killer, aspects of the scene of Lynne’s death seem inconsistent with the theory that the appellant was the perpetrator.
[787] For these reasons, dealt with in considerably more detail above, we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably convict, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result. Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of s. 696.3(3)(ii) of the Criminal Code, the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered.
[788] We wish to thank all counsel for their assistance in this unique and difficult case. We have already referred to the determination of Mr. Truscott’s counsel, who diligently pursued every possible avenue and presented their case with candour and great skill. Likewise, Crown counsel were extremely thorough and, as one would expect, candid and helpful in their presentation of the Crown’s case."
Damn I love it when the system works. We citizens all owe a debt of gratitude to Steven Truscott and David Milgard before him for their persistence and patience and especially their strength of character in pursuing justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are