# data[].attributes.body
Wrongly Convicted Erin Walsh

# data[].attributes.body
The image of wrongly Convicted Erin Walsh

# data[].attributes.body
The image of wrongly convicted Erin Walsh

# data[].attributes.body
Wrongly Convicted Erin Walsh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
KARINA DZIUBA   WRONGFULLY CONVICTED VIDEO ASSIGNMENT, EXONEREE   ERIN WALSH

# data[].attributes.body
Video Link to Erin Walsh Conviction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Enough government stalling!  Compensation now for Erin Walsh!

# data[].attributes.body
Link to the video

# data[].attributes.body
Link to Erin Walsh Conviction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Networked Knowledge - Media Reports

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles]

Dr Charles Smith Homepage
Canadian Issues Homepage
Article on Australian miscarriage of justice cases
Article on UK miscarriage of justice cases
Article on USA miscarriage of justice cases

On 23 December 2008 Kirk Makin of the Globe and Mail reported "Wrongful Conviction: The Erin Walsh Case".

He said public inquiry into N.B. case the only path to accountability, lawyer says. An organization that is synonymous with exonerating innocent prisoners has called for a public inquiry into the case of Erin Walsh - the only proven wrongful conviction in New Brunswick's history. Frustrated with the province's intransigence in the nine months since Mr. Walsh was acquitted of murder in the 1975 slaying of Melvin (Chi Chi) Peters, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted said yesterday that a formal probe is needed to get to the bottom of what went wrong. "Once again, we have no accountability," said James Lockyer, an AIDWYC director who worked on Mr. Walsh's appeal. "The only vehicle that works in our system to establish accountability seems to be the public inquiry, and that is what this case needs."

AIDWYC had elected to remain silent on the issue since Mr. Walsh's acquittal in deference to the fact that he is dying of bowel cancer. However, Mr. Lockyer said yesterday that the province appears determined to pretend that the Walsh debacle never existed - a posture that will become considerably easier after Mr. Walsh, 60, dies. In an interview, Mr. Walsh questioned whether the province's reluctance to delve into the case could be connected to the fact that the man who prosecuted him, William McCarroll, is now a New Brunswick Provincial Court judge. Indeed, a statement of claim Mr. Walsh filed in 2007 alleges that Judge McCarroll "maliciously prosecuted" him by failing to disclose several pieces of evidence that could have been vital to the defence.

Mr. Lockyer said yesterday that Judge McCarroll's profession should be irrelevant to whether or not an inquiry is held. "In a way, I think you could say that the higher their profession, the more important it is for us to ensure that their conduct was proper," he said. New Brunswick has also refused to negotiate compensation for Mr. Walsh - a response that is opposite to that of most other provinces, where wrongly convicted individuals have typically been awarded upward of $1-million. "The Attorney-General himself and his officials - including the Crown who appeared on the appeal - all conducted themselves admirably in the criminal case," Mr. Lockyer said. "I don't understand why different officials in his department have now seemingly done a complete about-turn when it comes to some form of compensation for Mr. Walsh."

Mr. Walsh, a drug trafficker and ne'er-do-well, was passing through St. John in 1975 when he became involved with a group of local thugs. He was travelling in a car with four of them when Mr. Peters was fatally shot. Mr. Walsh claimed that a struggle ensued as the men attempted to steal a consignment of drugs and $800 cash that Mr. Walsh was carrying. However, prosecutor Mr. McCarroll convinced a jury that Mr. Walsh - who was sitting in the front seat - had turned around suddenly and shot Mr. Peters because he did not like black people. In 2003, Mr. Walsh uncovered fresh evidence in the provincial archives that could have had a dramatic effect on the trial. At his appeal last March, the Crown conceded that he was likely a victim of a wrongful conviction. Two hours later, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal acquitted him of second-degree murder.

"Why wasn't this material - that we now know shows that he did not commit the crime - not produced in 1975?" Mr. Lockyer asked yesterday. "Who knew about it, and didn't produce it? "Accountability isn't just about identifying the people who caused a wrongful conviction. It also enables us to see how we can make sure that it doesn't happen to someone else in future."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canada reports: Wrongful Conviction: The Erin Walsh Case - 23 December 2008

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Networked Knowledge - Media Reports [This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles] Dr Charles Smith Homepage Canadian Issues Homepage Article on Australian miscarriage of justice cases Article on UK miscarriage of justice cases Article on USA miscarriage of justice cases On 23 December 2008 Kirk Makin of the Globe and Mail reported "Wrongful Conviction: The Erin Walsh Case".

# data[].attributes.body
Link to Erin Walsh Conviction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wrongful Conviction: Erin Walsh In late 2006, Erin filed an application with the Federal Minister of Justice for a review of his conviction, arguing that the recent evidence he had discovered in the Crown file proved that he was innocent. The process was also expedited because

# data[].attributes.body
Link to Erin Walsh conviction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author: Sarah Harland-Logan

Introduction

Erin Walsh was not a saint, but nor was he a killer. He spent over 30 years trying to prove it.[1]

On August 11, 1975, Erin and his friend George Ferguson arrived in Saint John, New Brunswick, hoping to do some business. Specifically, they were planning to sell methamphetamine, which they had bought in Montreal. That night, Erin and George went drinking and met several locals, including Donald MacMillan and David Walton. The next morning, the friends met up with Donald and David again and discussed Erin's drug-selling plans. They were soon joined by a fifth man, Melvin "CheChe" Peters. All five then drove to nearby Tin Can Beach.[2]

At the beach, Erin took off his shirt and waded into the bay. Looking up, he suddenly noticed that his Cadillac's trunk was open. Suspicious, he waded back to the beach and checked his shirt pocket for his keys. He discovered that they were missing. Erin had only a few moments to get angry before Donald, David and CheChe attacked him. Erin found himself on the ground, facing the wrong end of a sawed-off shotgun.[3]

Erin's assailants demanded to know where he kept his methamphetamine and money. He truthfully told them that both were in his car. Erin then made his escape and ran up a nearby embankment, where several men were working on the railroad tracks. Fearing for his life, he asked them to call the police.[4]

Soon after, his friend George caught up to him, and explained that the other men had calmed down and that they had only been "joking". Erin and George then headed back toward Erin's car. It turned out that the other three had not been joking at all: they intercepted Erin and George en route to the car, and forced Erin into the front seat at gunpoint.[5]

Donald, David and CheChe then started discussing what they should do with Erin. Donald said that they had to "get rid of him somehow." CheChe replied that they should simply "blow his head off right here." Knowing he had nothing to lose, Erin made a desperate grab for the shotgun, and several people then struggled for it. Erin heard a shot but did not know exactly what had happened: he would later recount that he "went into a state of shock temporarily." That said, he thought that it was Donald who had ended up with the gun.[6]

One thing that was perfectly clear was that CheChe had been shot. The car's occupants soon heard a police siren. As the Court of Appeal would later phrase it, CheChe then fell out of the car, "got up, staggered to the police cruiser, opened the back door and fell across its seat." The police promptly arrested all four men who were still in Erin's car. CheChe was rushed to the hospital, but soon succumbed to the gunshot wound he had taken to the chest.[7]

Later that day - August 12, 1975 - Erin was charged with CheChe's murder.[8]

Erin's Trial

At trial, the Crown presented a very different view of what had happened in the minutes leading up to the shooting. The prosecution called Donald and David, who claimed that rather than attacking Erin, they had all just been drinking together. In their version, the only person who was causing problems was Erin himself: they claimed that he had been making racist remarks aimed at CheChe, who was African-Canadian. They also claimed that the shotgun belonged to Erin, and that he had purchased both the gun and its ammunition during his stay in Saint John. Finally, Donald and David testified that once the men had returned to Erin's car, he had - most implausibly - "reached under the front seat, pulled out the firearm and shot Mr. Peters, who was sitting in the back seat minding his own business."[9]

Erin tried to explain what had really happened; but he had no evidence except his word, which the jury did not believe. In fact, they were so convinced of his guilt that their deliberations only took an hour, including a break for lunch.[10]

On October 17, 1975, Erin was convicted of the second-degree murder of CheChe Peters. He spent the next 10 years in jail for a crime that he did not commit, followed by additional stints in prison for parole violations. From the beginning, Erin always insisted that he was innocent.[11]

The Emergence of Hidden Evidence

For the next 33 years, Erin fought to clear his name. He first appealed his case to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, but the court was not persuaded. Undeterred, Erin wrote to every official he could think of, trying to get more information about his case, even when he knew that the parole board would hold these efforts against him.[12]

In 2003 - 28 years after his conviction - Erin wrote to the New Brunswick Provincial Archives, and at long last received a helpful response. The Archives sent him the complete Crown file of his case. What he found there would clear his name.[13]

Erin soon realized that the Crown had kept him in the dark about several serious problems with their case against him. Most crucial of all was the fact that police had overheard Donald and David discussing what had really happened, while waiting after their arrest in the cells. David had asked Donald, "What did you shoot CheChe for?" - to which Donald had replied, "You're going to help me out, aren't you, Dave?" The two then started coming up with the story that would draw attention away from Donald and point the finger at Erin instead.[14]

In addition to the record of this conversation - which would have seriously damaged the credibility of both Crown witnesses - the police also had a statement from the owner of the hardware store where Erin had supposedly purchased shotgun shells. The statement made it clear that Donald was the real purchaser. In fact, he bought the shells before Erin had even arrived in Saint John.[15]

Moreover, the Crown file also contained statements from seven Canadian National Railway employees, all of whom agreed that Erin had indeed fled from the beach and asked them for help. Taken together, these three new pieces of evidence made it clear that Donald and David had lied to the jury about the events that led to CheChe's death.[16]

Finally, the file included a ballistics report showing that both versions of events were consistent with the ballistics evidence. Since Erin had not been provided with this report, he did not have enough information to ask the ballistics expert effective questions and properly support his side of the story. At his own trial, Erin had been flying blind.[17]

A Miscarriage of Justice

In late 2006, Erin, with Innocence Canada's (formerly AIDWYC) help, filed an application with the Federal Minister of Justice for a review of his conviction (as per s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code). He argued that the extensive new material he had discovered in the Crown file proved that he was innocent.[18]

Sadly, Erin had just been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was now fighting not only to clear his name but also for his life. As a result, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal made every effort to hear his case promptly, as soon as the Minister of Justice approved Erin's application in February of 2008. The process was also expedited because the Crown now agreed that Erin had suffered a miscarriage of justice and that his conviction should be quashed.[19]

On March 14, 2008, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal found that no reasonable jury, in possession of all the evidence, could have found Erin guilty of CheChe's murder. Therefore, the Court quashed Erin's conviction and entered an acquittal. More than three decades after his wrongful conviction, Erin had finally cleared his name.[20]

Causes of Erin's Wrongful Conviction

Erin was wrongly convicted because he was never provided with the evidence that he needed to make his case. The Supreme Court made it crystal clear, in its 1991 decision R v Stinchcombe, that this behaviour from the Crown is not acceptable. Rather, the prosecution is required to disclose any and all potentially relevant documents to the defence (except for a few types of privileged materials).[21]

As the Supreme Court held in Stinchcombe, "The right to make full answer and defence is one of the pillars of criminal justice on which we heavily depend to ensure that the innocent are not convicted." Failing to provide the defence with all the relevant evidence can prevent the accused person from receiving a fair trial, which of course can lead to a wrongful conviction, as it did in Erin's case.[22]

In its Stinchcombe decision, the Supreme Court also quoted from a much earlier judgment, Boucher v The Queen. In this celebrated 1955 case, the Supreme Court clarified that the prosecutor's goal is not to win cases, but rather to ensure that justice is done:

It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty that which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings.[23]

After all, when an innocent person is wrongly convicted, nobody wins.

Wounds that Innocence Canada Cannot Heal

After Erin's acquittal, he told reporters that "This is the best day of my life" - "I've been working hard towards it for 33 years and finally it's here." Now he could say the words, "I'm a free man," and mean them: "freedom now means something to me. It is not just a word. It is something that I'm going to wear every day of my life like I wore my captivity." Erin's description of his newfound freedom makes it clear that until his long-overdue acquittal, a part of him remained behind bars.[24]

Far too soon after fully gaining his freedom, Erin passed away, after a four-year battle with colon cancer. He died at home in Kingston, surrounded by his family, at age 62.[25]

In the words of Innocence Canada lawyer and Director Sean MacDonald, "The fact that a doctor gave him six months to live in August of 2006 and he went on to engage in what would become an epic fight for justice after being diagnosed with terminal cancer speaks for itself."[26]

[1] See Sean MacDonald, "Erin Walsh Exonerated After 33 Years." (Spring 2008) Vol. 9 AIDWYC Journal, pp. 3-4 ["Exonerated"]; Chris Morris, The Canadian Press: "Dying Man Acquitted of 1975 Murder Conviction." March 14, 2008, available at The Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/03/14/dying_man_acquitted_of_1975_murder_conviction.html ["Dying Man Acquitted"].

[2] Walsh v New Brunswick, 2008 NBCA 33 at paras 10, 15, 19, 238 CCC (3d) 289 [Walsh].

[3] Ibid at paras 11, 23-24.

[4] Ibid at paras 25-26.

[5] Ibid at paras 27, 31, 33.

[6] Ibid at paras 33, 35.

[7] Ibid at paras 34, 36.

[8] Ibid at para 2.

[9] Ibid at paras 2, 10, 21, 65, 75; "Exonerated," supra note 1 at p. 3.

[10] "Exonerated," supra note 1 at pp 3-4.

[11] Walsh, supra note 1 at paras 3-4; "Dying Man Acquitted," supra note 1.

[12] Exonerated," supra note 1 at p. 3; Walsh, supra note 1 at para 3; "Dying Man Acquitted," supra note 1.

[13] Exonerated," supra note 1 at p. 4.

[14] Walsh, supra note 1 at paras 38, 80, 89, 94.

[15] Ibid at paras 66-68.

[16] Ibid at para 72.

[17] Ibid at para 76.

[18] Ibid at paras 1, 4.

[19] Ibid at paras 6-7, 45; "Exonerated," supra note 1 at

[20] Walsh, supra note 1 at paras 91, 99; "Exonerated," supra note 1 at p. 3.

[21] R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, [1991] SCJ No 83.

[22] Ibid at para 11.

[23] Boucher v The Queen, [1955] SCR 16 (Rand J) at pp. 23-24 (emphases added).

[24] "Exonerated," supra note 1 at p. 3; "Dying Man Acquitted," supra note 1.

[25] CBC News: "Man Wrongfully Convicted in N.B. Murder Dies." October 14, 2010: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/man-wrongfully-convicted-in-n-b-murder-dies-1.912058.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author: Sarah Harland-Logan Erin Walsh was not a saint, but nor was he a killer. He spent over 30 years trying to prove it.[1] On August 11, 1975, Erin and his friend George Ferguson arrived in Saint John, New Brunswick, hoping to do some business.

# data[].attributes.body
The completion of my case is going to look at Erin Walsh. Erin Walsh is one of the people we learn about who was wrongly convicted in Canada. Walsh was involved in some circumstances that led to the death of one of the friends he met while they were on a business tour in New Saint John’s Brunswick, Canada. Walsh, with his friend George, was planning to sell methamphetamine, which both of them had purchased from Montreal. The situation of Walsh after conviction is that he went and suffered from cancer while he was in prison, which later on caused his death after he was released from jail. However, the conviction of Walsh caused him to undergo a lot of challenges as he spent almost three decades in prison trying to prove that he was not guilty.

The story of Erin Walsh is one that shows the kind of patience and persistence he had while to prove his innocence. There are many reasons as to why Erin Walsh was convicted. One of these reasons includes the lack of presentation of all the evidence that the prosecutor was supposed to bring in court. The police who were involved in arresting Donald and David heard Donald asking David why he shot Peters. The evidence of the conversation not presented to the court, though, was contained in the file that was used to charge Walsh for the murder of Peters. As it is seen from the situation that involved Walsh Erin, there is no losing or winning on the part of the prosecutor as his main objective is to bring the required evidence and any material to make sure there is fair judgment to all the victims who are involved in the report. It is also essential as it helps to make sure there is nobody who is wrongly convicted.

From the case that Erin Walsh was involved, we can see clearly that he was not compensated for the wrongful conviction. The processing of the case and the time it took to be heard and overturned did not give an idea of where compensation took place. The end of the judgment for the example was the freedom that came after a long legal battle to prove his innocence, which finally happened after spending around three decades in prison. From my perspective, compensation is supposed to take place when a person has been wrongly convicted. The same should also apply to the individuals who were involved in giving false or unnecessary information that was used to convict the person who has undergone unnecessary suffering. Providing incorrect information and incomplete information should be considered a crime in the judicial process as the outcome of the case depends on the information given by those who were leading the case.

There are many ways through which the wrongly convicted should be compensated. One of the methods that should be applied is offering an alternative judgment to the persons who were giving thee information supporting the case. Hefty fines and compensation should be imposed on them to discourage the vice of hiding the evidence or giving data that is not necessary. Though wrong conviction is not required to take place at all, there is no other better method that can be suggested to be the best in compensating those who are become victims of wrong conviction

The topic contains a lot of lessons that we can learn. One of these lessons is that there are lots of people who are convicted wrongly due to various circumstances, some of which they were not involved in completely. Secondly, we learn that the kind of cases that we see in our judicial systems are not engaged in those who are supposed to be convicted. Thre are also many groups of people who have been behind giving false information by being false witness a situation that has led to many people being convicted on the wrong basis. As for the case that involved Erin Walsh, the man developed severe health complications in conviction. There are high chances that Walsh developed cancer that caused his death while he was in prison. All these conditions resulted in causing the death of Walsh later on after being realized from jail.

The conviction of Erin Walsh on wrong without being guilty of what he was accused of is a setback, especially to a person of his caliber who was had majored in an outstanding career. Despite going through all the processes that took quite a long time, Erin did not ask for compensation, which is quite amazing. Neither did he take his time to ask for legal actions against those who had acted against the law and offered false information that led to his conviction. Erin was only happy that he had fought a good fight to secure his release, which he had finally achieved at the end. Therefore, we have as a society; we must deliberate on the matter that can lead to offending others intentionally and avoid them as they are associated with causing harm to others.

Work Cited

Guaglio, Andrew. "Proving Innocence after Appeals-A Call for Uniform Post-Appeal Disclosure Policies." Crim. LQ 62 (2015): 88.

Tam, Katie Ka-Yan. Maintaining Identity Within Prisons: Resistance and Repercussions Experienced by the Wrongly Imprisoned. Diss. Carleton University, 2015.

Clow, Kimberley A., et al. "Public perception of wrongful conviction: Support for compensation and apologies." Alb. L. Rev. 75 (2011): 1415.

Somji, Narissa. "A Comparative Study of the Post-Conviction Review Process in Canada and the United Kingdom." Crim. LQ 58 (2011): 137.

Roach, Kent. "An Independent Commission to Review Claims of Wrongful Convictions: Lessons from North Carolina." Crim. LQ 58 (2011): 283.