Dear Friend of AIDWYC,
Welcome to the first instalment of the new AIDWYC Quarterly newsletter. Our newsletter is an update on AIDWYC cases and events, highlights the dedication of one of our many volunteers and is designed to educate about the legal issues specific to cases of wrongful convictions. We welcome any feedback and hope that you find it timely and informative.

We encourage you to forward this newsletter to your friends and colleagues in the hope that we can strengthen our supporter base and educate the general public about our work. We have had some great success with our cases over the past few months and hope to maintain this positive momentum.

Everyone at AIDWYC appreciates your interest, dedication and support,
and we look forward to continuing the fight to overturn wrongful
convictions together.

AIDWYC Co-Presidents, Jonathan Freedman and Ralph Steinberg

Richard Brant By: Win Wahrer

Father Vindicated

On May 4, 2011, as a result of a joint submission by AIDWYC lawyers James Lockyer and Alison Craig and Crown attorney Alison Wheeler, Richard Brant was acquitted of the death of his infant son, Dustin. The three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal headed by Marc Rosenberg apologized to Mr. Brant for the miscarriage of justice and the almost twenty years over which he endured such a heavy and painful burden.

Mr. Brant, of Belleville, Ontario, became a father at age 19, to son Dustin on September 9, 1992. His life took a horrible turn on November 17, 1992. While on a walk with nine-week-old Dustin, Brant lifted a rain protector on his son's stroller in order to introduce him to his cousin. He was horrified to find Dustin lying motionless in the stroller with a red foam around his nose. Brant and his cousin rushed the baby to a nearby restaurant, where they called 911. Tragically, Dustin passed away in the early morning hours of November 18.

Dr. Sukrita Nag, Professor of Neuropathology, conducted Dustin's autopsy at the Kingston General Hospital in Kingston, Ontario. She determined that Dustin had died of complications from pneumonia. Despite this determination, authorities requested that Dr. Charles Smith advance his expert opinion as Ontario's leading paediatric forensic pathologist.

In his report of April 15, 1993 Smith concluded that Dustin had died from "either shaking or something hit his head or his head hit something" while he was with his father. Smith asserted that Dustin exhibited the classic symptoms of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), and suggested that Dr. Nag's autopsy report should be "filed in the garbage can". Smith's opinion was submitted without his having had the ability to examine either tissue samples or Dustin's brain, which had decomposed due to improper storage. Mr. Brant was charged with manslaughter.

After almost three years of living a horrifying nightmare, Mr. Brant agreed to plead guilty to aggravated assault. He was told time after time that Dr. Smith represented a formidable opponent, and that Smith's testimony would convict him and send him away for six to 15 years. Brant was also awaiting the birth of his second child, and the thought that he would not be a part of the child's life led him to reluctantly agree to the plea. On April 21, 1993, Mr. Brant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault in Belleville and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Mr. Brant was ostracised by his community, and as a result he moved to Montreal and then eventually to New Brunswick, where he still resides. He remained haunted by the plea deal, even though at the time he made it very clear to his lawyer and the courts that he did nothing to intentionally cause the death of his son.

Since Mr. Brant's conviction, much has come to light with regards to the validity of a 'shaken baby' diagnosis, and Dr. Smith's work was put under a microscope when dozens of complaints were registered about his incompetence.

In 2005, a re-investigation and re-examination of Smith's work in 45 child death cases, including Dustin Brant's, was conducted. Dr. Helen Whitwell, a forensic pathologist for the Home Office in England and the former head of the Department of Forensic Pathology at the University of Sheffield, was the lead external reviewer in Dustin's case.

AIDWYC contacted Mr. Brant in 2007following this audit, and at his request set up a meeting with Justice Stephen Goudge, who had been named the Commissioner of the Inquiry into Paediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. The Inquiry began in November 2007 with a mandate to address serious concerns over the way criminally suspicious deaths involving children were overseen by the Province of Ontario - in particular, cases handled by Charles Smith.

Dr. Whitwell and other experts testified at the inquiry as to the possible cause of Dustin's death. Dr. Whitwell said that pneumonia should not have been discounted as a cause of death; five other experts subsequently agreed – essentially confirming Dr. Nag's original 1993 opinion.

Richard Brant had little support once he was accused of the death of his son, but Dustin's mother, Mary Farrell, always stood by him even though their relationship ended shortly after Dustin's death. They had not seen each other for almost twenty years but she, along with her sister and a friend, were there to support him at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In an affidavit filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal, Richard said the following:

"I did not cause Dustin's death or assault him in any way, and pled guilty because I felt I had no other realistic option. I entered my plea because I feared the consequences of flawed pathology. If knew then what I know now, I would not have done so. I ask the Court to take the burden of having harmed him from my shoulders."

Tammy Marquardt By: Win Wahrer
Rest in Peace Son

On June 7, 2011 Tammy Marquardt's journey through the criminal justice system finally came to an end in an Oshawa, Ontario courtroom - where it began almost 18 years ago.

At approximately 10:10 a.m., Crown prosecutor Michael O'Driscoll advised Ontario Justice Michael Brown that the Crown did not wish to proceed with a new trial against Ms. Marquardt, largely due to fresh evidence that showed the cause of death of her son to be undetermined.

Representing Ms. Marquardt was AIDWYC lawyer James Lockyer, who addressed the court and briefly related the circumstances that led to Tammy's son Kenneth Wynne's tragic death and to the charge of murder against his young mother. Tammy began to weep as Mr. Lockyer read the transcript from her 911 call seeking help for her lifeless toddler and related the inhumane treatment she suffered when Oshawa police brought her in for questioning instead of taking her to the hospital to be with her dying son.

"Tammy Marquardt was essentially an easy target," Mr. Lockyer told the judge. "She was an easy target for Charles Smith and an easy target for the criminal justice system. She was convicted for a murder that did not happen."

Tammy, her family and supporters, and James Lockyer were all elated when Justice Brown acknowledged that the murder charge had been withdrawn. Justice Brown then apologized to Tammy for the grave and devastating injustice that had been visited upon her by the criminal justice system and by Charles Smith's incompetence. He expressed his deepest regret that it had taken so long for her to be exonerated.

Justice Brown added that there was, "Nothing I can say today that will repair the damage that has been caused to you. Nothing I can say will bring back your son Kenneth, for whom you still grieve. I wish my words could do that."

His comments to Tammy ended with words that, although few, had a depth of meaning that only people in Tammy's position could truly understand: "You are free to go now, ma'am".

Tammy exited the courtroom to a hug from her fiancé, Ric, and applause from her sister Carol, niece Amanda and nephew Christopher, AIDWYC clients, supporters and well-wishers.

Tammy then emerged from the courthouse clutching a photo of Kenneth. To the waiting media she said, "My nightmare is finally over. The one thing that never should've happened has ended. Now Kenneth can finally rest in peace."

Tammy Marquardt was a 21-year-old mother when, on October 9, 1993, her son Kenneth passed away from what the now-discredited Charles Smith determined was due to either strangulation or suffocation. Smith never considered the strong possibility, and evidence suggesting, that Kenneth, who had epilepsy, had died from a seizure.

Tammy has always denied any wrongdoing in Kenneth's death. Six forensic experts, including Newfoundland's chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Simon Avis, have rejected Charles Smith's opinion as to the cause of death and stated instead that the cause of death cannot be determined.

Tammy Marquardt was convicted on October 24, 1995 and sentenced to life imprisonment. She appealed her conviction in 1998 but was not successful. In 2004, Ms Marquardt contacted AIDWYC seeking its assistance in clearing her name. Her case was assigned to AIDWYC lawyers David Bayliss, James Lockyer and Richard Posner, who later added Alison Craig to the team.

On March 12, 2009, Tammy was released on bail pending an appeal. Tammy is hoping that she will one day be reunited with her two sons, now 13 and 15 years old, who were taken away from her due to her incarceration. She can now start re-building her life with Ric and their daughter, Tiffany.

Dinesh Kumar
After Exoneration

What is life like after exoneration? Does it become markedly better for some? Is there a sense of validation? When the dust settles, how does one pick up the broken pieces of their lives and move on? AIDWYC client Dinesh Kumar has agreed to share what life has been like for him and his family in the five months since his acquittal.

At the time of his 1992 conviction for the death of his infant son, Gaurov, Mr. Kumar was a new resident of Canada, a father to 18-month-old Saurob, and a husband to his devoted wife, Veena. Unfamiliar with the language and the legal system, Mr. Kumar had accepted a plea deal of criminal negligence causing death, and received an intermittent sentence, two years' probation and the promise that Saurob, who had been apprehended by the Children's Aid Society, would be returned to him and his wife.

He has wrestled with his decision ever since. Mr. Kumar was acquitted on January 18, 2011 in the Ontario Court of Appeal, 20 years after he was charged in the death of his five-week-old son Gaurov.

On that day, there was only one place that the Kumar family wanted to be: at a special service at their Hindu temple. It was important to the Kumars to advise their temple of the Court's decision: that Mr. Kumar was, indeed, not guilty - he did not kill his infant son. He and his family were greeted at the temple with hugs, handshakes and well wishes by those who attended the special service.

Prior to his exoneration, Mr. Kumar and his family had experienced people whispering behind their backs; some believed that Mr. Kumar killed his child. Since then, those who had previously whispered have approached Mr. Kumar and acknowledged that they misunderstood and are now aware that they were wrong. Mr. Kumar now feels at peace, and that a heavy burden has been lifted not only from his shoulders but from those of his wife Veena and of his 65-year-old mother, who lives in India. People who were hesitant to speak to Mr. Kumar have since approached him and hailed his exoneration.

Veena has also noticed changes in attitude among those in their community. When she was attending class, fellow students were cordial but she never felt accepted; now she finds they are much warmer and they have begun inviting her to functions.

Mr. Kumar, who was not able to get a good night's sleep, says since his exoneration that he is able to have a restful and deep sleep.

Life has its challenges, but knowing that people who doubted his innocence now know the truth has been a gift that he had hoped for and now received. He and his family are feeling at peace and are hopeful once again.

Michael Dineen B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor

AIDWYC is extremely fortunate to have appeal lawyer Michael Dineen as one of our volunteers. Mr. Dineen has served AIDWYC for many years, as a member of the previous Review Committee, as a case reviewer and as a mentor. Michael has a mischievous grin and a twinkle in his eye, but behind his unique sense of humour and straightforward candor is a dedicated, knowledgeable and hard-working young lawyer who generously gives of his time and expertise. Michael Dineen received his law degree from the University of Toronto in 2002. He articled at the Crown Law Office – Criminal Division where he had worked as a high school student.

In 2006, Michael left the Crown's office and joined Lockyer Campbell and later Pinkofskys, where he remained until its offices closed in 2010. A number of the lawyers previously with Pinkofskys then formed Rusonik, O'Connor, Ross, Gorham and Angelini law firm, where Michael worked doing appeals.

Michael has just opened his own law practice. He will continue to specialize in appeals. Michael is a legal editor for Canadian Criminal Cases. He is also an adjunct faculty member at the University of Toronto, where he successfully mentored four law students to win the Gale Cup moot – the premier criminal law moot in Canada. Apart from his work at AIDWYC, Michael is on the Area Committee for Legal Aid Ontario (Toronto). Michael appears regularly in the Ontario Court of Appeal on behalf of clients, but he also serves as duty counsel there, helping unrepresented inmates argue their appeals.

Andrea Bailey, a defence lawyer who is currently practising in Whitehorse, Yukon had this to say about Michael, with whom she has worked for a number of years:

"He is an amazing resource, a great friend, who always has time to spare to discuss a particular case or legal issue. He thinks very incisively and readily picks out the key point that needs to be resolved in my (sometimes panicked) phone calls, following which he always has a case or two that helps me start my analysis. I rely on him as much from here (Whitehorse) as I did when I was in Toronto, and I can pretty safely say that the Yukon judges have come to appreciate my Toronto resource almost as much as I do. Michael is extremely giving of his time, even when he is stressed with his own work. I have never known him not to take a few minutes to talk me through something. One time when I was in Toronto an issue arose during trial. He ran over to the Jarvis courthouse with triplicate copies of case law for me. He's one of the smartest people I know and very accomplished, but he has managed to avoid becoming arrogant. He has a good sense of humour and a ready appreciation of the ridiculous."

Jennie Cunningham is another lawyer presently practising in the Yukon who said this about her colleague:

"Michael is always ready to assist me during trials and appeals. I have called him from circuit courts on scratchy cell phones in Watson Lake, Old Crow and Carmacks and he always manages to make my job seem better after we talked. He is willing to donate his time as a colleague to many cases. Without colleagues like him, I would not want to be in this field."

Colleague and admirer Emily Morton shared the following about Michael:

"Michael has a vast knowledge of the law and a work ethic that drives him to continue to stay current on criminal law issues that he already knows so well. What makes him a treasure as a colleague (for us) and a lawyer (for his clients) is that his knack for abstract legal concepts and arguments is tempered by efficiency, an understanding that the facts usually matter on an appeal and a true concern for his clients. Michael is a creative legal thinker but most importantly, through his years of hard work as an appeal lawyer, he has the experience and knowledge to bring his creative thinking around to an argument that puts his clients in the best position to get the result justice requires"

Michael has proven his dedication and his ability to work hard as he rolls up his sleeves and digs deep while reviewing a potential AIDWYC case. Despite his busy law practise he reviews cases in a time-sensitive manner, winning the respect of both other reviewers and AIDWYC.

It is our hope that Michael will continue to volunteer with AIDWYC for many years to come.

In this first article of our Expert's Input section of the new AIDWYC quarterly newsletter, Forensic Psychologist Dr. Kristine Peace presents a brief introduction to the issue of false allegations and its relevance to wrongful convictions. She gives a summary of some pertinent research findings on the accuracy of determining the honesty of an allegation of victimization and outlines several conclusions emerging from the research. She indicates that there is research to suggest that there are some differences in content between truthful and fabricated allegations but that people are susceptible to a "truth bias" when assessing the veracity of the allegations. She calls for collaboration between forensic psychologists and those in the criminal justice system in order to best distinguishing truth from lies.

Kristine A. Peace, Ph.D. (Dal)
Experimental Forensic Psychology
Department of Psychology
Grant MacEwan University

Email: PeaceK@macewan.ca
Web: http://academic.macewan.ca/peacek/

Dr. Kristine Peace Ph.D. (Dal)
(Grant MacEwan University)

False Allegations: A Source of Wrongful Convictions

Assessing the credibility of statements made by alleged victims and perpetrators is a challenging task faced by legal professionals. False testimony can mislead investigators and lead to miscarriages of justice in the form of both wrongful convictions and acquittals. Although there has been much media attention concerning the details of such cases, the public is generally unaware of research investigating the sources of these errors. One source of wrongful convictions, and the focus of my program of research, is false allegations. False allegations refer to situations where an alleged victim generates a deceptive claim of being harmed or experiencing trauma for a variety of motivations (e.g., revenge, attention, compensation). For example, former alderwoman Dar Heatherington of Lethbridge, Alberta, falsely claimed that she had been receiving threatening letters, abducted, sexually assaulted, and abandoned in Las Vegas. Fortunately, her claims were correctly judged to be deceptive, no one was falsely accused, and she was convicted of public mischief (Graveland, 2004; Regina v. Heatherington, 2004a, 2004b). However, not all accused are so lucky. In another prominent case, the Nova Scotian government awarded various sums of money to former residents of the Shelburne School for Boys and the Youth Training Centre in Truro following claims of historical abuse by staff (see Kaufman, 2002). Many of these claims were later found to be false allegations motivated by monetary gain. In June 2006, legal actions launched by former teachers and guards against the Nova Scotia government were finally put to rest. Over $7 million dollars was awarded to the 79 staff members who were falsely accused of abusing students to compensate for over 10 years of hardship caused by these claims (CBC News, June 6, 2006).

It has been estimated that false allegations may occur in up to 20% of cases for some crimes, such as sexual assault or child abuse (especially within custody disputes). These cases frequently result in "he said, she said" testimony where legal professionals must engage in the challenging task of determining who is telling the truth. As a result, it is important to consider research that investigates how falsified claims of trauma can be detected. Three primary conclusions can be drawn from this line of research. First, genuine reports of victimization are different from false/deceptive claims, but there is no single "sign" (or Pinocchio's nose) of a false report (e.g., Peace & Porter, in press; Porter, Peace, & Emmett, 2007). In fact, some false allegations may be difficult to detect because they appear consistent over time, and the "scripted" nature of these claims goes unnoticed (e.g., Peace, Kasper, & Forrester, in preparation). This suggests that deceivers' use a level of sophistication when lying that may not be evidenced in 'tell-tale' signs of a false claim.

Related to this, false claims of victimization occur in both criminal and civil legal contexts, where assessments of psychological trauma may be ordered by the court. Individuals may claim they have developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to substantiate that an alleged crime occurred or to obtain compensation from individuals perceived to be responsible. For example, symptoms of trauma are often assessed in cases of historical abuse where the memory of abuse may be in question. The second conclusion from my research is that symptoms reported by individuals who are faking PTSD are generally inflated relative to victims who are genuinely suffering from this disorder, and may differ according to the motivation of the claimant (e.g., Peace & Masliuk, 2011; Peace, Porter, & Cook, 2010; Porter et al., 2007).

While it is clear that there are differences between truthful and fabricated claims of victimization (in both their content and symptoms), how accurate are we at detecting these differences? The third conclusion from my research is that we are shockingly poor at detecting deception, performing the same as if we were to randomly guess if claims are true or false (e.g., Peace, Porter, & Almon, in press; Peace & Sinclair, in press). Independent of whether individuals are legal professionals (i.e., police, judges, lawyers) or laypersons, research has demonstrated that we all generally perform around the level of chance (Vrij, 2008). In fact, studies where individuals are asked to judge emotional reports of trauma, such as sexual assault, have found that people often perform worse than chance accuracy. We are very hesitant to judge that victims may be lying, leading to a truth bias. Due to this bias, many researchers have turned their attention to other methods of detecting deception, such as analyzing verbal cues available in statements. As indicated above, there appear to be several cues that may be indicative of truthfulness or deception that are promising for future research (see Peace, Brower, & Shudra, in press).

So how can research assist legal professionals when assessing whether a false allegation has been made? We suggest that all allegations should be carefully evaluated in terms of the characteristics and context of the claim, as well as any supporting corroboration (Porter, Peace, Douglas, & Doucette, in press). Such assessments conducted by trained forensic psychologists who specialize in credibility assessment can provide investigators information on indicators of possible deception. In addition, collaborations between police/lawyers/judges with researchers to conduct further studies on confirmed true and false allegations would be invaluable. Working together to determine how truths and lies can be better distinguished in this context may help to prevent some wrongful convictions that stem from false allegations.

References
• CBC News (2006, June 6). Long legal battle finally over. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.cbc.ca/newsatsixns/archives/2006_jun_w1.html.
Graveland, B. (2004, January 26). Trial adjourns before it begins. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 19, 2004, from http://www.globeandmail.com.
• Kaufman, F. (2002). Searching for justice: An independent review of Nova Scotia's response to reports of institutional abuse. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/kaufmanreport/fullreport.pdf.
• Peace, K. A., Brower, K. L., & Shudra, R. D. (2011, accepted). Fact or fiction? Discriminating true and false allegations of victimization. Invited chapter for Psychology of Victimization book.
Peace, K. A., Kasper, R., & Forrester, D. (2011). Tall tales over time: Detailed consistency of true and false allegations of trauma. Manuscript in preparation.
• Peace, K. A., & Porter, S. (2011, in press). Remembrance of lies past: A comparison of the features and consistency of truthful and fabricated trauma narratives. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
• Peace, K. A., Porter, S., & Almon, D. (2011, in press). Sidetracked by emotion: Observers' ability to discriminate genuine and fabricated sexual assault allegations. Legal and Criminological Psychology.
• Peace, K. A., Porter, S., & Cook, B. L. (2010). Investigating differences in truthful and fabricated symptoms of traumatic stress over time. Psychological Injury and Law, 3, 118-129.
• Peace, K. A., & Masliuk, K. A. (2011). Do motivations for malingering matter?: Symptoms of malingered PTSD as a function of motivation and trauma type. Psychological Injury and Law, 4, 44-55.
• Peace, K. A., & Sinclair, S. M. (2011, in press). Cold-blooded lie catchers?: An investigation of psychopathy, emotional processing, and deception detection. Legal and Criminological Psychology.
• Porter, S., Peace, K. A., & Emmett, K. (2007). You protest too much, methinks: Investigating the features of truthful and fabricated reports of traumatic experiences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39, 79-91.
• Porter, S., Peace, K. A., Douglas, R. L., Doucette, N. L. (2011, in press). Recovered memory evidence in the courtroom: Facts and fallacies. In J. Ziskin, S. Anderer, and D. Faust (Eds.), Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony. Oxford University Press.
• Regina v. Heatherington (2004a), ABPC 116.
• Regina v. Heatherington (2004b), ABPC 191.
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

AIDWYC Granted Supreme Court Intervener Status

On April 21, 2011, Brian Snell appeared as counsel for AIDWYC, which had been granted Intervener status, in the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. V.Y.

V.Y. concerned an allegation of sexual assault and, as in many such cases, the outcome of the trial turned on a consideration of the credibility of the accused and of the complainant. The accused was convicted in 2008, and appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In the Court of Appeal, V.Y. argued that the trial judge had erred in accepting the complainant's account and then using that acceptance to discredit the evidence given by the accused. V.Y. argued that this had reversed the burden of proof and was therefore contrary to the reasoning process for issues of credibility outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.W.(D.) and in successor cases. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed, by a 2-1 decision allowing the appeal, setting aside the conviction, and ordering a new trial.

The Crown appealed as of right, arguing that the majority of the Court of Appeal had misapprehended the law concerning the assessment of credibility, and further arguing that the majority had taken too formalistic an approach to the review of the trial judge's reasons. Counsel for V.Y., Michael Engel, Ingrid Grant and AIDWYC Board member Russell Silverstein, argued that the majority's approach had been a correct one.

Given the potential impact of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on wrongful convictions, AIDWYC sought and received leave to Intervene in the case. In his factum and in his oral arguments before the Court, counsel Brian Snell argued that, in credibility cases where no articulable reason exists to doubt the evidence of the accused, convicting solely on the basis of the complainant's evidence cannot result in a safe conviction. He further argued that the the potential for wrongful convictions in credibility cases is "particularly acute" owing to the frequent inability of the innocent accused to "muster more than a simple denial". Further, where extrinsic evidence does not exist to support the accused's version of events, the likelihood of the convicted person being able to later support a fresh evidence application under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code is greatly diminished. "For these reasons, " Mr. Snell submitted, "a clear statement from this Court is required that a conviction cannot be sustained where a defendant's evidence is rejected solely because a complainant is believed."

On May 6, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in V.Y., and upheld the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision is reported at 2011 SCC 22.

Cincinnati, Ohio
First International
INNOCENCE NETWORK
Conference

On April 7 – 10, 2011 the International Innocence Network Conference was held at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Representing AIDWYC as panelists were exoneree and Board member Ron Dalton and Senior Legal Advisor James Lockyer. Ron participated on a panel with four fellow international exonerees. James Lockyer also had an opportunity to shared the Canadian experience with wrongful convictions on a panel.

Other Canadians in attendance were Professor Kent Roach, of the University of Toronto and Sean Carrie and Win Wahrer, from AIDWYC.

This was the first time that the Innocence Network Conference, first held in 2007, had an international focus. The conference welcomed representatives of innocence projects and like-minded advocacy groups from 20 nations around the world. There were 22 panels covering a wide range of topics connected to wrongful convictions, including several panels that dealt specifically with issues facing exonerees and their families.

One of the most moving moments of the conference was when the approximately 100 exonerees, representing countries around the world, were introduced individually during the opening ceremonies. Among these were both Ron Dalton and AIDWYC client Cy Greene, from New York, who spent 22 years incarcerated for a crime he did not commit.

The focus on exonerees extended also to an exhibition of art and poetry created by exonerees while they were still imprisoned and to an exoneree concert concluding with all exonerees gathered on stage with the singers and musicians as to perform a heartfelt rendition of Jailhouse Rock.

AIDWYC is a member of the Innocence Network. The next International Innocence Conference will be hosted in Kansas City by the Missouri Innocence Project in April 2012.

Peter Meier
A man of great dignity
and poise

AIDWYC's first Chair and President, Peter Meier, has, after 18 years, announced that he is retiring both from the Executive Committee and as a Director. Through his humility, wisdom, integrity, and work ethic he has earned the respect and admiration of people from every walk of life. Peter, a retired civil lawyer, originally from the United Kingdom, is a founding member of AIDWYC. Peter's many years working on human and civil rights issues have shown him to be reliable, resourceful, honest, and knowledgeable - not to mention possessing the patience of Job.

Peter will always be an integral part of AIDWYC, for without his guidance, perseverance and leadership qualities AIDWYC would not have become such a well-respected advocacy group and ardent voice for the wrongly convicted.

Peter, although retiring, will feed his insatiable hunger for knowledge his ongoing work towards a PhD at York University in the Graduate Program in Law.

Peter will be greatly missed at Board meetings by his colleagues, but all know that he will continue to be a willing and valued mentor.

We extend our deepest gratitude to a giving and gifted man; AIDWYC was so fortunate to have Peter among us as long as we did.

Event Recap
Injustice Speaks
2nd in a Series

Please mark Thursday, October 27, 2011 in your calendars in order to attend the second in AIDWYC's Injustice Speaks series of dialogues. The topic will be the death penalty. Participating in the discussion will be Mike Farrell, of M*A*S*H fame, who is an actor, producer, writer and a strong advocate against the death penalty. Other participants will be announced at a later date.

Event Recap
Annual General meeting

AIDWYC hosted its 2011 Annual General meeting on June 4, 2011. Ninety people, including wrongly convicted, board members, volunteers, members and supporters from across the country attended the meeting.

Former Minister of Justice and current Member of Parliament for Mount Royal Irwin Cotler was this year's keynote speaker. A highlight of his address involved Mr. Cotler sharing why, as Minister of Justice, he had decided to send Steven Truscott's case back to the Ontario Court of Appeal instead of quashing his conviction and ordering a new trial. He noted that this was admittedly not a popular decision (even with his wife and certainly not with the Truscotts), but he stated that he knew it was the right decision in order to ensure that Steven Truscott won an acquittal. In light of Steven's subsequent acquittal by the Ontario Court of Appeal, Mr. Cotler felt that his judgment had been sound.

The exonerees in attendance included: Board member Ron Dalton, Romeo Phillion, Rob Baltovich and Réjean Hinse, AIDWYC clients whose cases that have not yet been resolved were: Gary Comeau, Tim Rees, Maria Shepherd and Tammy Marquardt. Win Wahrer acknowledged the regrets of William Mullins-Johnson, Sherry Sherrett Robinson, Anthony Hanemaayer, Jack White and Steven Truscott.

Congratulations were extended to Réjean Hinse for the $13.1-million compensation recently awarded him by the province of Quebec and by the federal government. He was also awarded a certificate acknowledging his perseverence in this decades-long fight.

Invited to address the audience, Réjean spoke about his struggle against the stigma brought about by his wrongful convictions and against the horror of incarceration, which had led to feelings of hopelessness and despair. "You then realized it's no use of screaming in your cell," he noted. "Only the walls send you back the echo." In recognition of his belief in the importance of AIDWYC's work he presented a donation to AIDWYC.

"I gave $100,000 to Pro Bono Quebec, and I have a cheque of the same amount signed for AIDWYC in order to help others who find themselves in my situation," he said.

Réjean's generous gift drew thunderous applause and a standing ovation. On AIDWYC's behalf, Win Wahrer thanked Mr. Hinse for his generosity, noting that while AIDWYC had not worked on his case, the organizations has for many years supported him and his efforts to bring an end to his case and would continue to do so.

Event Recap
Awareness Through Art

By: Win Wahrer and Maria Shepherd

On June 11, 2011 AIDWYC hosted its first "Awareness Through Art" Fundraiser at the Bezpala-Brown Gallery, 17 Church Street in Toronto. Approximately 70 people, many of whom previously knew little of AIDWYC's work, attended the event featuring pieces of art contributed by artists Peter Alexander Por, Tori Mongrain, Madeleine Robilliard, Alfred Crespo, Raul Crespo and Eve Atkin as well as some of AIDWYC's wrongly convicted and other aspiring artists.

In attendance were Romeo Phillion, Tammy Marquardt, Robert Baltovich, Dinesh Kumar and Jamie Nelson, strong and courageous survivors of wrongful conviction. Each were presented with a gift of a leather key chain with 'AIDWYC' engraved on its front and back. These were created by AIDWYC client Jeff Boppre, who is currently in his 19th year of a wrongful incarceration in Nebraska.

For the exhibit, Romeo Phillion contributed two needlepoint pieces. Another artist who contributed to their art work is Ray Gray – an AIDWYC client in his 39th year of wrongful incarceration. AIDWYC Case Management Counsel Sean Carrie created a painting of Romeo Phillion which was unveiled and auctioned. Romeo was surprised and delighted with the piece, which was purchased by artist Peter Alexander Por. In addition to the artwork, guests were treated to a musical presentation by AIDWYC client Maria Shepherd's son, Jordan Carter, and his duet partner Melanie Garcia.

Maria Shepherd took an opportunity to pay tribute to AIDWYC "I am humbled by the opportunity to help in any way I am able - to participate in events held by AIDWYC and to help raise awareness for the prevention and correction of wrongful convictions."

The evening was made possible by the donation of the gallery venue by its proprietors, Lyudmila Bezpala-Brown and Darrell Brown and the event coordination and set up by gallery curator Fariz Kovalchuk.

AIDWYC extends many thanks to those who contributed to make this event possible, especially:

University of Ottawa
BandAIDWYC Fundraiser

By: Ari Linds (Co-President CLSA)

On March 10, 2011, the Criminal Law Student Association (CLSA) of the University of Ottawa held its annual and most highly anticipated event: BANDAIDWYC. This charity concert event takes place every year with the goal of raising money for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). As in past years, this year's event was a success.

Thanks to the efforts of the CLSA Executive, the bands that kindly offered their talents, and the sponsors that generously donated raffle prizes, $300 was raised for AIDWYC.

The display of musical talent was unmistakable. The PFJ's opened the show and headliner Annelise and The Astronaut Love Triangle wowed the crowd.

Part of the CLSA's mandate is to spread knowledge and build awareness of the multifarious socio-legal issues at play in criminal law practice, policy and academics. The occurrence of wrongful convictions is an alarming truth that deserves the attention not only of our current judges and lawyers, but of the current student body that may be able to take part in the prevention and rectification of such injustices in the future. Holding BANDAIDWYC is the CLSA's opportunity to inform the public of the reality of wrongful convictions in Canada, and assist the commendable efforts of AIDWYC.

AIDWYC is indebted to the law students at the University of Ottawa, who have through their efforts, raised awareness of AIDWYC's work through music, and community participation for the fifth consecutive year.

Students in Photo below (left to right): Sam Weinstock (Second Year Representative); Michael Purcell (Community Outreach Director); Cynthia Morin (French Representative); Ari Linds (Co-President); Masiel Matus (Co-President); Donald Dawson (Treasurer); Caitlin Downing (First Year Representative); Adam Pennino (Second Year Representative).