The nuance is more than semantics. Whereas innocence implies an absence of wrongdoing, being found not guilty merely indicates that the prosecution had insufficient evidence to establish factual responsibility of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Much case law exists on the subject of reasonable doubt since its inception.
All this to say, in the end, Steven Truscott, having narrowly missed the hangman’s noose—literally—was sentenced to life in prison. He became eligible for parole after nearly a decade of incarceration.
The basics of criminal procedure were ignored during the Truscott trial, the most flagrant of which was the court’s refusal to grant a change of venue (legalese for moving a trial to a different location). It is disturbing that Truscott was tried in adult court—despite being a minor—and that contradictory testimonies were permitted at trial, but the change of venue oversight is unacceptable.
A change of venue is granted when a case is so notorious within the local community, it is impossible to form a fair and impartial jury. It can also be granted if the accused is personally or intimately linked to the potential jurors. The population of Clinton, Ontario, where the events took place, is about 3000 (2500 in the 50s). All residents either knew one another, or knew of one another.
Steven Truscott was not anonymous in this small town. Nor was Lynne Harper. In a situation where all the jurors enjoy a personal connection to the victim or her parents, the possibility of an impartial jury is compromised. Seeing the remains of a raped and slaughtered local young girl has that effect on people, naturally.
All of this is covered in greater detail throughout the play. Yet, whereas Innocence Lost allows the playgoer to experience the tribulations of a small town grieving through lowly scapegoating, to me, the play highlights this tragic example of an undermined justice system.
In 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal formally acquitted Truscott of all charges, followed by a public apology by the Attorney General. Without the luxury of modern DNA forensic technology, it is impossible to know whether Truscott is truly innocent. But that’s irrelevant. What we do know is that a Canadian court established that the evidence was insufficient to merit a guilty verdict. And that’s enough.
When one Canadian’s due process is denied, confidence in our justice system falters. Steven Truscott, at least, was put on trial, and [attempted] amends were eventually made for this “miscarriage of justice.” Another Canadian Citizen, Omar Khadr, only one year older than Truscott was when accusations were brought against him, waited a decade for his trial in Guantanamo. Will he have to wait 50 years for an apology?
* Gabriel Di Genova is an attorney at Mitchell Gattuso s.e.n.c. in Montreal. He practices primarily in corporate law and commercial litigation.
** The opinions expressed in this text reflect solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions or views of anyone associated with the case or the play.
