COURT 8 TO 1: WE DO NOT BELIEVE STEVEN TRUSCOTT'S TESTIMONY

The Supreme Court of Canada

1967, May 4: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott testified before the Supreme Court of Canada and got a chance to tell his story for the first time. Truscott and 25 other witnesses testified before the Court, telling their story to the best of their abilities.  After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. Those eight judges watched and listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused.  The Supreme Court stated that “There were many incredibilities inherent in the evidence given by Truscott before us and we do not believe his testimony”

The Joint opinion of Canada’s Supreme Court Justices:

 “The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.

The lone dissenting voice came from Justice Emmett Hall. He said that having considered the case fully, he believes that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial directed.  His view was that the trial was not conducted according to law and that even the guiltiest criminal must be tried according to law.  He also said that does not mean that I consider Truscott guilty or innocent; that determination is for the jury and for the jury alone.

Truscott explains this deplorably bad performance by saying that his lawyers did not “adequately prepare” him for his testimony (page 432). Think about that one for a moment. Here we have the most notorious criminal case in Canadian history, an unprecedented hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada after an eight year public battle, the best criminal lawyers in the country, all this new expert evidence on human digestion that will exonerate wrongly convicted Steven Truscott – yet no one on the crack defense team thinks to prepare their star client for his testimony? How much preparation is required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  Is this one of the many “incredibilities” those Supreme Court judges talk about?

On a review of all the evidence given at the trial, the verdict could not be set aside on the ground that it was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.

The verdict was in accordance with the evidence. Furthermore, the judgment at trial could not have been set aside on the ground of any wrong decision on a question of law or on the ground that there was a miscarriage of justice.  The effect of the additional evidence which was heard by this Court, considered in its entirety, strengthens the view that the verdict of the jury ought not to be disturbed.

The Supreme Court was asked to determine how it would have decided an appeal by Truscott, on the basis of the existing judicial record and any other evidence it received. 

The Court ruled 8-1 that it would indeed have upheld the conviction on the basis that the conduct of the provincial trial was fair and legal.  There would be no new trial.