Murder jury didn’t hear about deal, Driskell inquiry told

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/08/2006 (7013 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Driskell inquiry heard startling revelations Tuesday that the jury in Frank Ostrowski’s 1987 murder trial did not hear about a deal that a key witness made to avoid drug trafficking charges in return for his testimony.

RELATED STORY:

Crown did nothing as witness lied

Driskell’s lawyer James Lockyer revealed a federal justice department report which he said showed striking similarities to two other high-profile murder cases that were also prosecuted by George Dangerfield — Driskell and Thomas Sophonow.

The Crown’s cases relied heavily on evidence provided by key witnesses who’d been given undisclosed deals in return for their testimony, and who testified that they did not have deals, Lockyer told the inquiry into Driskell’s wrongful conviction of the 1990 murder of Perry Dean Harder.

Lockyer also said that all the Manitoba cases in which hair sample comparison evidence has been overturned all had Dangerfield as the Crown prosecutor.

Dangerfield’s lawyer Jay Prober was frequently on his feet objecting, but commissioner Judge Patrick LeSage ruled that Lockyer could examine within tight limits how Dangerfield had acted in similar cases. But, LeSage said, his inquiry was not going to analyse other cases.

Sophonow has had his own wrongful conviction inquiry, while Ostrowski is still in prison.

Lockyer said that federal justice officials gave him permission yesterday morning to use Ottawa’s own documents from the Ostrowski case.

Lockyer told the inquiry that the government had dropped cocaine trafficking charges against key witness Matthew Lovelace after he had testified at Ostrowski’s murder trial and subsequent unsuccessful appeal. An unidentified federal official wrote in December of 1986 that the deal was in place, three months before the Ostrowski trial, Lockyer said.

He quoted from a written report by the unidentified federal official, who wrote in 1986, “if Lovelace comes through with the goodies, will stay (charges) subject to confirmation with provincial crown.”

“I was never informed of this,” Dangerfield said.

“Here we are again, the witness saying he has not been made aware of the deal” when he testified, Lockyer said.

Replied Dangerfield: “I didn’t make any deals. I don’t think there were any deals with Mr. Lovelace.”

Lovelace’s lawyer Hymie Weinstein said yesterday that he met more than a year ago with Alan Libman, Lockyer’s partner in the inquiry, but declined to comment further. The Ostrowski trial was almost 20 years ago, said Weinstein, adding that he shreds his files after 10 years.

Ostrowski said in an interview yesterday that the federal report shows he got an unfair trial. He only wants to clear his name, said Ostrowski, who said that the Driskell inquiry will help his own bid to have a wrongful conviction declared in his case.

“I want to go home to my family. I’m almost in tears. I’ve never hurt anyone in my life.

“I’ve done 20 years for nothing,” Ostrowski said.

Driskell spent 12 years behind bars for Harder’s murder. He always maintained innocence. Driskell’s conviction was quashed by the federal Justice Department last year after DNA tests proved hairs used to convict him were not Harder’s.

Lockyer asked Dangerfield if he had anything to say to Driskell.

Dangerfield said he was sorry Driskell spent time in prison, but, “I didn’t place him in this position, as far as I’m concerned.

“Yes, I’m sorry he put in all that time in prison. One of the things that contributed to Mr. Driskell’s conviction was his decision not to give any evidence. Had he gone in the box, he might very well have been acquitted,” said Dangerfield.

“I don’t have an opinion to Mr. Sophonow’s guilt or innocence, I don’t have an opinion to Mr. Driskell’s guilt or innocence. Nobody wins these things — the victim’s dead, the perpetrator goes to prison,” said Dangerfield.

Dangerfield told the inquiry Monday that he had sat by silently while key witness Ray Zanidean lied on the witness stand. Dangerfield said he did not know details of the deal Zanidean had made with senior crown officials.

Lockyer said that in the Sophonow case, key witness Thomas Cheng had a deal to have criminal charges dropped and to avoid deportation if he testified against Sophonow.

“It was a case where you didn’t disclose all the benefits the witness had,” Lockyer said.

Dangerfield said he had not deliberately kept information from Sophonow’s lawyer, Greg Brodsky, who was also Driskell’s trial lawyer.

However, he acknowledged, “I did not bring it up to (Brodsky) or to the witness in the witness box.”

Lockyer said that the cases of Driskell, Kyle Unger, Robert Sanderson, and Robert Starr used hair sample evidence that was later overturned.

“These problems seem to keep happening in your cases,” Lockyer told Dangerfield.

Outside the hearing, Prober told reporters that Dangerfield had prosecuted hundreds or even thousands of cases, and only Sophonow’s was declared a wrongful conviction. If hair sample evidence once accepted by Canadian courts is now considered “junk science”, that’s not Dangerfield’s fault, Prober said.

The hearing continues Wednesday morning.

With files from Bruce Owen.

nick.martin@freepress.mb.ca