#miscarriagesofjustice

The legal proceedings of the Baltovich case were long and exhausting. Let’s dive into a timeline of the important events that took place…

June 19th, 1990: Elizabeth Bain disappears (1).

November 19th, 1990: Baltovich is arrested and charged with first- degree murder, despite no finding of Bain’s body (1).

February 4th, 1992: Baltovich’s first trial commences. The charge is dropped to second- degree murder in light of evidence brought forward by both the defence and the Crown (1).

March 31st, 1992: Baltovich is found guilty of second- degree murder charge, receiving a life sentence for the crime (1).

May 1992: Baltovich files an appeal with a new attorney as he believed his defence counsel in the first trial was incompetent. Baltovich also believed many ethical issues occurred in his first trial and addresses these in his formal request for an appeal (1).

May 16th, 1992: The appeal is filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal and Baltovich remains in jail until the scheduled hearing (1).

March 2000: Association in the Defence of the Wrongly Convicted agrees to take Baltovich’s case and requests release of Baltovich while his appeal is considered. By this point Baltovich had been imprisoned for over eight years. He is then released pending the appeal (1).

September 2004: Ontario Court of Appeal reviews the case and orders a new trial on the grounds that there were drastic errors in the first trial. However, they state an acquittal will not be automatically received and a jury must make a new formal decision (1).

April 2008: Second jury finds Baltovich not guilty of the new charge of second- degree murder minutes into the retrial and it is decided an inquiry into the case will not be conducted (1).

📷

Baltovich spent 18 years attempting to clear his name and was able to do so upon presenting a compelling case during his retrial. He presented the inadequacies of the first trial and showcased the fact that he was deprived of a fair and balanced charge/ trial.

Baltovich’s case is not the first miscarriage of justice and will certainly not be the last. The disastrous effects on Baltovich’s life from a wrongful conviction are ones that can never be undone. He spent 18 years attempting to clear his name and will now spend the rest of his life attempting to make up for the time he lost while behind bars (2). He legally cleared his name but restoring his reputation is a much harder job and Baltovich states that regardless of his newfound innocence by the court system, there will always be individuals who believe he is guilty (2). Baltovich highlighted the true heartbreak of his miscarriage of justice by stating “Wrongful accusations can be devastating to even the strongest person. I don’t think you ever really become you again.” (2). Throughout the entirety of the 18 years of the legal proceedings, Baltovich maintained his innocence and worked diligently to be acquitted of the charges wrongfully laid on him (1).

(1) CityNews. Robert Baltovich and the Elizabeth Bain Murder Trial: The Timeline - 2007 October 15th. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2007/10/15/robert-baltovich-and-the-elizabeth-bain-murder-trial-the-timeline/ (accessed March 14th 2021).

Robert Baltovich's life was changed forever the day his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain, disappeared. A trip to the University of Toronto Scarborough campus by Bain on the 19th of June 1990 resulted in, not only her tragic disappearance but the wrongful conviction of Baltovich for a crime in which he did not commit. Baltovich was the victim of a miscarriage of justice grounded entirely in circumstantial evidence. The evidence presented throughout the legal proceedings focused on three key aspects: motive, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt following the offence (1). The prosecution argued that Bain was in fact attempting to discontinue her romantic relationship with Baltovich at the time of her disappearance. They presented the idea that this caused Baltovich to respond in a jealous rage, resulting in her death and therefore providing motive for the killing (1). Evidence presented by the prosecution in court stated that witnesses seen Baltovich and Bain sitting together on a picnic table around 5:40pm on the day of her disappearance and had also seen Baltovich driving Elizabeth's car on the 22nd of June, three days after her disappearance (1). These testimonies provided the prosecution with an argument of opportunity for Baltovich to commit the killing as loved ones of Bain believed she would be on the UTSC campus to "check out the tennis schedules" and thereby would not be concerned with her lack of presence throughout the day of her disappearance (1). Lastly, it was argued that Baltovich showed extreme guilt following the disappearance of Bain (1). This was used by the prosecution to argue grounds that Baltovich must have been overwhelmed by guilt since he must have been the one to kill Elizabeth (1).

Not only was the unreliability of witness testimony an ethical issue contributing to this miscarriage of justice but so was the use of hypnosis on witnesses in attempt to "strengthen" their memories of the events they claimed to have witnessed firsthand. Hypnosis on witnesses in criminal proceedings has been highly controversial and considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the R v Trochym case, as not generally admissible in court (2). Individuals are also seen to be more suggestible under hypnosis which can cause an increase in inaccurate memories in the same manner it may do so for accurate memories, if provoked by suggestive actions produced by the individual conducting the hypnosis (2).

Furthermore, it was argued by the defendant and his legal team that he had not received a fair trial -- a right afforded to him by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2). It was shown that the trial judge promoted the Crown's case while simultaneously denigrated the defence's case (1). It was argued that the charge to the jury lacked fairness and balance (1).

Lastly, the case also involved the use of improper photo line- up techniques when interviewing Perez, leading to suggestive behaviours by officers conducting the photo line-up (2). It was admitted by Perez that she had selected the photo of Baltovich on a "process of elimination" as a photo array format was used in place of a sequential lineup format (2). Prior to taking part in the line- up, officers had suggestively told her that Baltovich's photo was present in the line-up (2). This was a significant ethical issue in Baltovich's miscarriage of justice as photo line-ups are to be conducted in a way in which members of the force do not have specific information regarding presence of certain individuals (2).

So, let's dive into the details of Robert Baltovich's miscarriage of justice that resulted from various ethical issues during the long and tiring legal process of the courts.

(1) Canadian Legal Information Institute. R. v. Baltovich. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii45031/2004canlii45031.html (accessed February 2nd 2021).