radiofree.asia

Category: Press Release

  • Jonathan Smith Walks Free After 21 Years of Wrongful Imprisonment

    (April 21, 2021 – Easton, Maryland) Today Jonathan Smith, Sr. was freed after nearly 21 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Mr. Smith entered a conditional Alford plea, under which he expressly maintains his innocence. The terms of the plea allow Mr. Smith to appeal earlier decisions in his case, including Mr. Smith’s position that all charges against him must be dismissed.

    Just under a year ago, the Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the 2001 murder convictions of Mr. Smith and his co-defendant David Faulkner and granted both men Writs of Actual Innocence. The Court’s decision was based on new palm print evidence found at the crime scene identifying an alternative suspect, and exculpatory evidence that the prosecution improperly withheld from the defense regarding the reliability of informant testimony. Despite this overwhelming evidence of innocence, Mr. Smith — until today — was facing a retrial in the Circuit Court for Talbot County.

    The conditional Alford plea allows Mr. Smith to maintain his innocence and preserves his right to appeal his conviction and judgment. Mr. Smith’s decision to enter into this plea is based upon his contention that his ability to present a full defense at any retrial has been permanently prejudiced as a result of the State’s intentional, willful and/or reckless misconduct and that, as a result, he can no longer obtain a fair trial in this case. On the basis of that prejudice, Mr. Smith maintains that his due process rights under the Maryland and United States’ Constitutions and protection against double jeopardy have been violated.

    “Today, after more than two decades fighting for his innocence, Mr. Smith will reunite with his family and friends,” said Susan Friedman, Mr. Smith’s Innocence Project attorney. “Mr. Smith continues to steadfastly maintain his innocence and is hopeful that he will receive the justice he deserves.”

    “A year ago, the Court of Appeals unanimously recognized the significance of the innocence evidence in Mr. Smith’s case,” said Don Salzman, Mr. Smith’s attorney with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP. “ We will continue to fight to make sure that Mr. Smith is fully vindicated.”

    Case History

    Mr. Smith and Mr. Faulkner were convicted of the 1987 murder of 64-year-old Adeline Wilford in 2001 and sentenced to life in prison. A third co-defendant, Ray Earl Andrews, Sr., who was 16 at the time of the crime, was sentenced to 10 years for burglary in exchange for testifying against the two older men. There was no physical evidence linking the three men to the crime.

    The case had gone cold for 13 years until a witness falsely claimed to have seen the three men fleeing from the crime. The witness, Beverly Haddaway, alleged that she saw the three young men walk out of a cornfield approximately a few miles away from the Wilford home on the afternoon of the murder, and that Mr. Smith had blood on his shirt. On March 1, 2001, a jury convicted Mr. Smith of felony murder and daytime housebreaking and a month later, the court sentenced him to life in prison.

    In 2011 and 2012, lawyers from the Innocence Project and the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project filed Public Information Act requests. For the first time, the Maryland State Police disclosed police recordings of conversations between Ms. Haddaway and Maryland State Police Corporal John Bollinger. These recordings revealed that Ms. Haddaway had demanded that the state dismiss unrelated drug charges against her grandson in exchange for her testimony against Mr. Smith and Mr. Faulkner. The recordings also show that the state refused to place that deal in writing to prevent Ms. Haddaway from being cross-examined on the issue. The state, in fact, dismissed the charges three days before Mr. Andrews’s trial was scheduled to begin.

    In 2013, Mr. Smith filed motions to reopen their post-conviction proceedings based on these recordings and filed a motion for post-conviction latent print comparison for previously unidentified palm prints on the sill of an open window and inside Ms. Wilford’s home. In March 2014, the state’s attorney acknowledged that the prints matched an offender in the database, but refused to disclose his identity for a year. When the identity was finally revealed in 2015, lawyers discovered that the prints matched those of Ty Anthony Brooks, who was incarcerated at the time and had previously served prison time for a similar burglary in which he was alleged to have assaulted another elderly woman within months of Ms. Wilford’s murder.

    Evidentiary hearings were held on this new evidence in 2016 and 2018 in the Circuit Court for Talbot County. On April 27, 2020, in a unanimous opinion by the Court of Appeals, Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Faulkner’s petitions for Writs of Actual Innocence were granted.

    The State Suppressed Key Evidence

    More than a decade after Mr. Smith’s conviction, it was learned that prosecutors in this case hid a wealth of exculpatory evidence from the defense. The most crucial pieces were the tape recordings of the State’s informant witness Ms. Haddaway and lead investigator, Maryland State Police Corporal Bollinger, making a deal to dismiss the drug charges against Ms. Haddaway’s grandson in exchange for her testimony against Mr. Smith and his co-defendant. This exchange, in addition to a host of other inculpatory tape recordings, would have entirely discredited their testimony at trial. The recordings demonstrated that the State’s misconduct tainted every trial witness it presented against Mr. Smith during his 2001 trial, and could have effectively altered the verdict.

    In addition to the tapes, foreign DNA had been recovered and tested from the victim’s fingernails. The State determined that Mr. Smith and his co-defendants were excluded as matches to that DNA. In November 2000, a Maryland State Police DNA analyst advised prosecutors that, in addition to the victim’s DNA profile, there was a partial foreign DNA profile recovered from the victim’s fingernails that did not match Mr. Smith or his co-defendant. Yet, in a subsequent letter to defense counsel, two months before Mr. Smith’s trial, the prosecutor lied about the results of the DNA testing on the fingernail evidence, stating, “I have been advised that the fingernail clippings, not surprisingly, are showing only the victim’s DNA.” This lie was further exploited in the State’s closing arguments at trial, explaining to the jury that there was no DNA evidence in this case.

    Mr. Smith is represented by Susan Friedman and Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, and Donald Salzman, Nathan P. Wacker, Andrew Hanson, William A. Bejan, Barri T. Dean, Ariana M. Taylor and Lucy Dicks-Mireaux of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP.

     

     

    The post Jonathan Smith Walks Free After 21 Years of Wrongful Imprisonment appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Coalition of environmental, labour, health, faith groups call on Canada to increase its climate ambition

    Today, the day before world leaders come together at the Leaders Climate Summit hosted by President Joe Biden, a coalition of groups came together to call on Canada’s federal government to increase the ambition of its actions to combat climate change. The organizations are highlighting that doing our fair share on climate action is not only Canada’s responsibility, but within our reach, with strong regulations, increased investment and a commitment to justice.

    Catherine Abreu, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada:

    “We’re calling on Canada to double down on climate ambition not just so we can finally contribute our fair share of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but so that we can do our part to build a better world. A foundation of strong climate goals, smart climate governance, generous climate finance, and human-centred climate policy will help us break our addiction to fossil fuels and shift to social and economic systems that work for people as well as the planet.”

     

    Naolo Charles, Founder, BE Initiative and Co-Founder, the National Anti-Environmental Racism Coalition:

    ”We need to put people at the center of our environmental policies and frameworks. We often forget that we, the people, and the living things around us are really what needs saving, not the planet itself. We need to let go of the old ideas, of the old profit over people, the old colonialism, we need to stop believing in old energy sources that start their life cycle as great assets for the economy and end as nightmares for people’s health.

    The Covid crisis is a signal that we need to listen to, a notice that our advanced economy can be paralyzed by environmental problems, that individualism can kill us all, and that we need to learn how to respect the balance of the environment because we are only a part of it. These are things that some of the communities that form Canada have known for centuries, so it’s time for us to value the people, the indigenous people, the racialized people, everyone no matter their race and social status because we need us all to overcome the challenges of this century.”

     

    Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, Executive Director, Indigenous Climate Action:

    “Current climate policies in Canada continue to fall flat leaving those on the frontlines of climate change, largely Indigenous and people of color, navigating the brunt of the consequences while being left out of decision making while corporations continue to be granted safeguards for business as usual. We can no longer accept climate policy development that excludes Indigenous and human rights. The exclusion of Indigenous climate leadership and denial of our rights to self-determination actually forecloses on some of the most powerful forces for transformative, systemic change in Canada. Policy focused solutions to the climate crisis need to be about more than the inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge, but rather the assurance of Indigenous sovereignty over policy decisions that impact our communities and territories.”

     

    Kate Herriot, Climate Justice Saskatoon:

    “The federal government must demand real action from the high-emitting laggard provinces, compelling them with whatever means are necessary.  It also needs to confront the big polluters that control political agendas in these provinces, to throw the oil industry out of bed, stop pampering it with subsidies and pipelines, and demand a plan for phasing-out fossil fuel operations.  We should, by now, be creating meaningful employment for labourers who are finding themselves stranded in dying industries, and enabling the clean industries and the clean jobs of the future.”

     

    Dr. Courtney Howard, Emergency Physician, Yellowknife, Past-President, CAPE:

    “The same measures that can help Canada achieve net zero by 2050 can save an estimated 112,000 lives from air pollution alone. Given what we now know about the health risks of air pollution, subsidizing fossil fuels is as unacceptable as is subsidizing tobacco. Today, hundreds of health professionals are asking our political leaders to acknowledge that lives lost to climate change and air pollution are every bit as valuable as those lost to COVID-19 and to take action accordingly by announcing a climate target that protects the health of our children.”

     

    The Most Rev. Mark MacDonald, National Indigenous Archbishop, Anglican Church of Canada:

    “In the urgency of our present day moment of multiple colliding global catastrophes, the living relationship of Indigenous Peoples to the Land is more than just an educational witness, it is a vital, essential, and sacred pathway to our future.   The symbiotic relationship of the People of the Land and Waters must not only be honoured and protected, it must be a prototype and pattern.”

     

    Dale Marshall, National Climate Program Manager, Environmental Defence:

    “Doubling our climate target is necessary, worth it and, most importantly, doable. It will be hard work, but Canadians are up for it, and the benefits will be healthier communities, more affordable energy, and more, stable, green jobs.”

     

    Joie Warnock, Assistant to the President, Unifor:

    “Canada must get more ambitious—our reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions won’t get the job done. It’s about getting it right for workers and communities to deliver a transition that protects and creates good jobs. Unifor is deeply concerned the Government of Canada has not done the work to ensure a just transition.”

    -30-

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: 

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    Pamela Daoust, National Communications Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), pamela@cape.ca

     

    The post Coalition of environmental, labour, health, faith groups call on Canada to increase its climate ambition appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New research: Canada can double climate ambition for 2030 and reduce energy costs

    CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CANADA, CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NEW BRUNSWICK, ECOLOGY ACTION CENTRE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ÉQUITERRE, STAND.EARTH, WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

    Economic modelling shows that Canada’s fair share of climate action comes with unexpected benefits 

    Ottawa, Ont. – New research released today by seven environmental organizations shows that Canada can take much more ambitious climate action between now and 2030 while maintaining a thriving economy and reducing energy costs for Canadians. The research, undertaken by renowned energy modellers from EnviroEconomics and Navius, shows that Canada can achieve 60 per cent GHG emission reductions by 2030, with a smart mix of policies and regulations.

    “Doubling our climate target is necessary, worth it and, most importantly, doable,” said Dale Marshall, National Climate Program Manager, Environmental Defence. “It will be hard work, but Canadians are up for it, and the benefits will be healthier communities and more, stable, green jobs.”

    The Leaders Climate Summit opportunity

    In the coming months, Canada and other nations are expected to strengthen their climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement. U.S. President Biden’s Leaders Climate Summit, to be held this Earth Day, is the first opportunity for Canada to show it wants to raise its ambitions and do its fair share to avoid climate catastrophe. Canada’s fair share target has been assessed as 60 per cent GHG reductions below 2005 levels by 2030. Its current commitment is to reduce GHGs by 30 per cent over this decade.

    “We can’t negotiate with the mathematical logic of the global carbon budget. If we keep polluting at today’s levels we have less than a decade before we cross into global temperature increases that will cost lives and make us all less safe,” said Louise Comeau, Director Climate Change and Energy, Conservation Council of New Brunswick. “The transition to a cleaner economy is the legacy we leave to future generations, forever. Let’s embrace the challenge.”

    “It’s time Canada got serious”

    The modelling research shows that achieving deep reductions will require a combination of much more stringent regulations and an escalating carbon price for all major sectors. The oil and gas sector–Canada’s largest and fastest growing source of carbon emissions–will have to shrink its production and emissions.

    “It’s time Canada got serious about our oil and gas problem,” said Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, climate policy analyst at Équiterre. “Oil and gas companies are responsible for more than one-quarter of Canada’s emissions, but less than 1 per cent of Canada’s jobs. Phasing out fossil fuels is not only a necessary part of addressing climate change, but it will improve other issues like unhealthy people and communities, and environmental degradation.”

    The modeling suggests that the economy and investment continue to grow significantly, but at a slightly slower pace than business-as-usual.

    A backgrounder explaining the modeling research can be found here.

    Some additional details of the modelling findings can be found here.

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    Anthony Côté Leduc, Équiterre, acoteleduc@equiterre.org

    The post New research: Canada can double climate ambition for 2030 and reduce energy costs appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement from Tim Gray, Executive Director, on the 2021 Federal Budget

    Ottawa, Ont. – Today’s federal budget follows a year of promises from the federal government to make significant investments towards putting Canada on a path to a genuinely healthier, more resilient and more inclusive future through a just and green recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Keeping communities safe and supported must be the priority, and many of the policies announced today aim to do just that.

    Budget 2021 contains unprecedented investments to tackle climate change and a range of measures targeting other environmental priorities, including a nearly $500 million reinvestment in the Chemicals Management Plan that will provide an opportunity for improvements to the ongoing evaluation and management of toxic chemicals.

    However, though historic for Canada – $17.6 billion allocated over 7 seven years for a green recovery –  the scale of investments falls short of the ambition we see internationally, especially from the United States. A similar level of investment here would translate into $500-$600 billion over the same period. The modest level of investment in climate action, coupled with an ongoing weak regulatory approach, explains why the federal government is only committing to 36 per cent reductions in carbon emissions by 2030, very far from Canada’s fair share of 60 per cent reductions. The budget would also benefit from some more focused commitments around helping Canadian freshwater bodies under threat, and for addressing climate change impacts in the Great Lakes and other freshwater bodies.

    Hiding in the details are some concerning elements, including a new commitment of more than $6 billion in financial support and new tax credits for high-emitting sectors. Without robust conditions, this money could support technologies, including plastic waste-to-fuel projects, carbon capture and fossil fuel-derived hydrogen, that will delay a transition away from fossil fuels and single-use plastics and lock us into decades of increased carbon pollution. These unproven and expensive technologies also obfuscate the reality that the energy transition is happening, and if we fail to prepare, it will be workers and communities who pay the price. These financial supports could provide government handouts to the very companies and activities polluting our air and water and threatening our collective future.

    The budget does also include investments to tackle the social injustices people in Canada endure everyday, such as a $15 federal minimum wage and increased affordable housing.  The introduction of an affordable national child-care plan is crucial to ensure that women can fairly participate in and benefit from green and just recovery efforts. Though some measures were included to help ensure wealthy Canadians and corporations pay their fair share, these fall short of the investments needed to create a green and just transition to a low carbon future.

    As we respond to one health crisis, we must not forget that the climate crisis is also a health crisis. Air pollution from burning fossil fuels kills nearly 9 million people a year globally, and over 30,000 in Canada. Investments in the green economy cannot tackle the climate crisis alone. We also need a plan to rapidly wind down production of fossil fuels in order to limit catastrophic levels of warming. This will require courage and leadership from our elected leaders.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA: Environmental Defence Canada is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    -30-

    For more information, or to request an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Statement from Tim Gray, Executive Director, on the 2021 Federal Budget appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Advisory: Coalition of environmental, justice, labour, health, faith groups to host press conference in advance of Earth Day Climate Leaders Summit

    BLUE GREEN CANADA, CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CANADA, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, FOR THE LOVE OF CREATION

    On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, the day before world leaders come together this Earth Day at the Leaders Climate Summit hosted by President Joe Biden, a coalition of groups is calling on Canada’s federal government to increase the ambition of its actions to combat climate change. The organizations are highlighting that doing our fair share on climate action is not only Canada’s responsibility, but within our reach, with strong regulations, increased investment and a commitment to justice.

    What: Online press conference about expectations for Canada’s climate leadership in advance of the Leaders Climate Summit

    When: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 9:30am ET / 6:30 am PT

    Speakers Include:

    • Catherine Abreu, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada
    • Naolo Charles, Founder, BE Initiative and Co-Founder, the National Anti-Environmental Racism Coalition
    • Eriel Deranger, Executive Director, Indigenous Climate Action
    • Dr. Courtney Howard, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
    • The Most Rev. Mark MacDonald, National Indigenous Archbishop, Anglican Church of Canada
    • Dale Marshall, National Climate Program Manager, Environmental Defence
    • Joie Warnock, Assistant to the President, Unifor

     

    Where: Held via Zoom. Register here: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_28_9CPbHQz23IgOXzEqlMw

    A french language version of this press conference will be held at 8:30am Eastern.

    -30-

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post Advisory: Coalition of environmental, justice, labour, health, faith groups to host press conference in advance of Earth Day Climate Leaders Summit appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New report: Federal government subsidies and financing for fossil fuels reached nearly $18 billion in 2020

    In advance of the federal budget, a new report from Environmental Defence shows that the federal government and its agencies increased financial support for oil and gas companies as country grappled with COVID-19

    Ottawa, Ont. –  A new report released today by Environmental Defence reveals that despite a decade of promises to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, Canada’s federal government announced a minimum of almost $18 billion to the oil and gas sector in 2020. In contrast, the Government’s new climate plan commits $15 billion to climate initiatives – spread over ten years.

    The report, Paying Polluters: Federal Financial Support to Oil and Gas in 2020, estimates federal supports either announced or provided in 2020, including COVID support programs. This includes $3.28 billion in direct spending and $13.6 billion in public financing, primarily through crown corporation Export Development Canada. However, the exact amount of financial support from the federal government is difficult to specify due to a lack of transparency and public reporting. As a result, the numbers included here are certainly an underestimate of total support.

    “For too long, Canadian governments have been propping up the fossil fuel industry, using tax dollars to fill the coffers of oil and gas corporations – the very companies and activities most responsible for the climate crisis,” says Julia Levin, Climate and Energy Program Manager at Environmental Defence. “Not only is this behaviour incompatible with ensuring a safe and healthy future – this is money removed from public budgets that could otherwise be spent on a just and green recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re giving away wealth to oil and gas companies at the expense of the general public.”

    Providing subsidies and public financing to oil and gas companies contributes to climate change, harms our health, diverts resources from public goods to private hands, yields very little in terms of job creation and distorts the energy market.

    Canada first announced its commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in 2009. As a result of a decade of inadequate action, Canada now provides more public finance for fossil fuels than any G20 country other than China – and the most on a per capita basis. Yet momentum to end public finance of fossil fuels among Canada’s peers and major trade partners is snowballing. The United Kingdom has already announced it will no longer provide public finance to overseas fossil fuel projects, and President Joe Biden has made eliminating fossil fuels subsidies and public finance a priority.

    “Both the upcoming federal budget and Earth Day Leaders Summit on Climate are great opportunities for Canada to announce plans to redirect the support going to fossil fuels and instead put Canada on a path to a genuinely healthier and more resilient future, one that leaves no one behind,” says Levin. “As the government continues to provide unprecedented recovery fundings in response to COVID-19, now is the time to pursue a long-term, planned exit from fossil fuel production that avoids prolonging and deepening the chaos of the past few months, by providing ample support for workers and communities.”

    Other key findings of the report include:

    • In 2020, an additional $15.35 billion was announced in programs, including as part of the new climate plan, that currently lack robust green strings and therefore could result in substantial fossil fuel subsidies if funds are directed to the fossil fuel sector (for example towards fossil fuel derived hydrogen or carbon capture).
    • A significant portion of the new support provided to oil and gas during the COVID-19 pandemic was under the guise of job creation and achieving environmental outcomes. These subsidies put taxpayers on the hook to clean up industry’s mess, and have not come close to achieving the intended job creation. Rather than spending the funds on additional reclamation work, the major oil companies that undertake the bulk of the work are simply replacing their own spending with federal funding.
    • Federal government agencies have played a key role in financing the construction of pipelines that have huge carbon footprints, violate Indigenous rights, and put ecosystems at risk. In 2020 alone, crown corporation Export Development Canada provided up to $5.25 billion in financing renewals for the Trans Mountain expansion (a project with an estimated total price tag of at least $12.6 billion) and approved a loan of up to $500 million for the Coastal GasLink pipeline.
    • Oil and gas companies claimed funds from COVID-support programs such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), while continuing to issue shareholder dividends. For example, Imperial Oil claimed $120 million through CEWS and issued $320 million in dividend.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA: Environmental Defence Canada is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    -30-

    For more information, or to request an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post New report: Federal government subsidies and financing for fossil fuels reached nearly $18 billion in 2020 appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Innocence Project Responds to Recent Factual Misstatements in Anthony Wright Case

    The following statement may be attributed to the Innocence Project (New York, NY) which is affiliated with the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The Innocence Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that seeks to exonerate the wrongly convicted and reform the criminal justice system to prevent wrongful convictions. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Innocence Project does not endorse or oppose candidates for any elected office. This statement is issued solely in our capacity as longtime counsel for Anthony Wright in order to provide accurate factual information regarding the history of Mr. Wright’s case. 

    In October 1991, 20-year-old Anthony Wright was arrested and charged with the rape and murder of Louise Talley, a 77-year-old widow who was brutally murdered in her North Philadelphia home. From the date of his arrest and for the next twenty-five years, Mr. Wright maintained his innocence. He specifically maintained that detectives forced him to sign a false “confession” under threats of physical violence, and that detectives also lied when they claimed to have found bloody clothing from the crime in Mr. Wright’s home which was not his.

    At Mr. Wright’s first trial, in 1993, DNA technology was in its infancy. Mr. Wright was convicted by a jury despite his protestations of innocence. The Philadelphia District Attorney sought the death penalty, but Mr. Wright was sentenced to life in prison. In 2014, after years of litigation by the Innocence Project, Mr. Wright’s 1993 conviction was overturned based on new DNA test results which (1) proved that his “confession” was false; (2) revealed that the clothing falsely attributed to him was not his; and (3) identified a deceased man with no connection to Mr. Wright as the source of the male DNA found inside the victim at autopsy. 

    Despite the DNA evidence, then Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams decided to retry Mr. Wright. Then ADA’s Bridget Kirn and Carlos Vega were assigned by DA Williams to jointly handle the retrial. The Commonwealth sought the death penalty a second time, but prior to trial, dropped the death notice and brought charges carrying a second life sentence upon conviction. The case was retried to a jury in August 2016 (with the Innocence Project and Samuel Silver of Schnader LLP as Mr. Wright’s counsel). The trial ended with Mr. Wright’s prompt acquittal (on the jury’s first ballot and in under one hour) on all counts, and he was freed on Aug. 23, 2016. Mr. Wright was subsequently awarded nearly $10 million in damages for his wrongful imprisonment in a historic settlement with the City of Philadelphia.

    In recent months, former ADA Carlos Vega, now a candidate for Philadelphia District Attorney, has made several statements regarding his role in Mr. Wright’s 2016 re-prosecution. When Mr. Vega was asked about his role in Mr. Wright’s re-prosecution in a February media interview, he said, “My only participation in that case was calling civilian witnesses and I think the crime scene personnel. With respect to the rest of the case, I was not involved at all. It was not my case.” Earlier this week, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that when speaking at a candidates’ forum in March, Mr. Vega characterized his role in the Wright trial as follows: “I was brought in at the 11th hour, two weeks before trial, just to question three witnesses.” 

    These statements are false. Mr. Vega was co-counsel for the Commonwealth throughout Mr. Wright’s 2016 trial, which spanned nearly three full weeks. In that capacity, he questioned fifteen different trial witnesses. They included: (1) presenting the testimony of the three lead detectives, whose claims to have extracted a truthful confession from Mr. Wright and to have found evidence from the crime in his home were the key disputed issues in the case; (2) cross-examining Mr. Wright himself (at great length – over 59 pages), during which Mr. Vega repeatedly challenged Mr. Wright’s integrity, veracity, and his claims of innocence; and (3) cross-examining the defense’s expert pathologist, who testified that the forensic evidence from the victim’s autopsy was inconsistent with Mr. Wright’s police-authored “confession.”

    Mr. Vega also testified at his post-trial deposition in 2017 about the specific role he played in Mr. Wright’s pretrial proceedings. Mr. Vega recalled that he was assigned to co-counsel the case with ADA Kirn approximately four to six weeks before trial. He met on numerous occasions with the lead detectives to prepare their testimony. He personally consulted with the head of the DAO’s homicide division about whether the case should proceed to trial, in which he expressed his view that the Commonwealth had a strong case against Mr. Wright. He made recommendations to his superiors regarding plea deals(s), which ultimately led to an offer — presented to the defense by Mr. Vega personally — that Mr. Wright plead guilty to a minimum term of 40-to-80 years (meaning that he would not be eligible for parole for another 15 years), which Mr. Wright promptly declined. 

    To this day, Mr. Vega has not apologized to Mr. Wright for the role he played in seeking his return to prison on a second life sentence, nor publicly acknowledged Mr. Wright’s innocence. In fact, during his deposition, Mr. Vega said that he believed Mr. Wright was guilty, and further stated that even if he had proof in 2016 that the detectives had knowingly fabricated Mr. Wright’s confession or planted physical evidence against him, he would have still recommended that the District Attorney’s Office proceed to trial.

    The Innocence Project takes no position on the merits of Mr. Vega’s campaign for District Attorney, nor on that of his opponent, District Attorney Krasner. We are issuing this statement on behalf of our client simply to set the record straight about the history of Mr. Wright’s case — one that both candidates have put at issue and commented upon during the campaign. 

    The post Innocence Project Responds to Recent Factual Misstatements in Anthony Wright Case appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Innocence Project Responds to Recent Factual Misstatements in Anthony Wright Case

    The following statement may be attributed to the Innocence Project (New York, NY) which is affiliated with the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The Innocence Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that seeks to exonerate the wrongly convicted and reform the criminal justice system to prevent wrongful convictions. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Innocence Project does not endorse or oppose candidates for any elected office. This statement is issued solely in our capacity as longtime counsel for Anthony Wright in order to provide accurate factual information regarding the history of Mr. Wright’s case. 

    In October 1991, 20-year-old Anthony Wright was arrested and charged with the rape and murder of Louise Talley, a 77-year-old widow who was brutally murdered in her North Philadelphia home. From the date of his arrest and for the next twenty-five years, Mr. Wright maintained his innocence. He specifically maintained that detectives forced him to sign a false “confession” under threats of physical violence, and that detectives also lied when they claimed to have found bloody clothing from the crime in Mr. Wright’s home which was not his.

    At Mr. Wright’s first trial, in 1993, DNA technology was in its infancy. Mr. Wright was convicted by a jury despite his protestations of innocence. The Philadelphia District Attorney sought the death penalty, but Mr. Wright was sentenced to life in prison. In 2014, after years of litigation by the Innocence Project, Mr. Wright’s 1993 conviction was overturned based on new DNA test results which (1) proved that his “confession” was false; (2) revealed that the clothing falsely attributed to him was not his; and (3) identified a deceased man with no connection to Mr. Wright as the source of the male DNA found inside the victim at autopsy. 

    Despite the DNA evidence, then Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams decided to retry Mr. Wright. Then ADA’s Bridget Kirn and Carlos Vega were assigned by DA Williams to jointly handle the retrial. The Commonwealth sought the death penalty a second time, but prior to trial, dropped the death notice and brought charges carrying a second life sentence upon conviction. The case was retried to a jury in August 2016 (with the Innocence Project and Samuel Silver of Schnader LLP as Mr. Wright’s counsel). The trial ended with Mr. Wright’s prompt acquittal (on the jury’s first ballot and in under one hour) on all counts, and he was freed on Aug. 23, 2016. Mr. Wright was subsequently awarded nearly $10 million in damages for his wrongful imprisonment in a historic settlement with the City of Philadelphia.

    In recent months, former ADA Carlos Vega, now a candidate for Philadelphia District Attorney, has made several statements regarding his role in Mr. Wright’s 2016 re-prosecution. When Mr. Vega was asked about his role in Mr. Wright’s re-prosecution in a February media interview, he said, “My only participation in that case was calling civilian witnesses and I think the crime scene personnel. With respect to the rest of the case, I was not involved at all. It was not my case.” Earlier this week, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that when speaking at a candidates’ forum in March, Mr. Vega characterized his role in the Wright trial as follows: “I was brought in at the 11th hour, two weeks before trial, just to question three witnesses.” 

    These statements are false. Mr. Vega was co-counsel for the Commonwealth throughout Mr. Wright’s 2016 trial, which spanned nearly three full weeks. In that capacity, he questioned fifteen different trial witnesses. They included: (1) presenting the testimony of the three lead detectives, whose claims to have extracted a truthful confession from Mr. Wright and to have found evidence from the crime in his home were the key disputed issues in the case; (2) cross-examining Mr. Wright himself (at great length – over 59 pages), during which Mr. Vega repeatedly challenged Mr. Wright’s integrity, veracity, and his claims of innocence; and (3) cross-examining the defense’s expert pathologist, who testified that the forensic evidence from the victim’s autopsy was inconsistent with Mr. Wright’s police-authored “confession.”

    Mr. Vega also testified at his post-trial deposition in 2017 about the specific role he played in Mr. Wright’s pretrial proceedings. Mr. Vega recalled that he was assigned to co-counsel the case with ADA Kirn approximately four to six weeks before trial. He met on numerous occasions with the lead detectives to prepare their testimony. He personally consulted with the head of the DAO’s homicide division about whether the case should proceed to trial, in which he expressed his view that the Commonwealth had a strong case against Mr. Wright. He made recommendations to his superiors regarding plea deals(s), which ultimately led to an offer — presented to the defense by Mr. Vega personally — that Mr. Wright plead guilty to a minimum term of 40-to-80 years (meaning that he would not be eligible for parole for another 15 years), which Mr. Wright promptly declined. 

    To this day, Mr. Vega has not apologized to Mr. Wright for the role he played in seeking his return to prison on a second life sentence, nor publicly acknowledged Mr. Wright’s innocence. In fact, during his deposition, Mr. Vega said that he believed Mr. Wright was guilty, and further stated that even if he had proof in 2016 that the detectives had knowingly fabricated Mr. Wright’s confession or planted physical evidence against him, he would have still recommended that the District Attorney’s Office proceed to trial.

    The Innocence Project takes no position on the merits of Mr. Vega’s campaign for District Attorney, nor on that of his opponent, District Attorney Krasner. We are issuing this statement on behalf of our client simply to set the record straight about the history of Mr. Wright’s case — one that both candidates have put at issue and commented upon during the campaign. 

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Environmental health advocates welcome first federal recognition of right to a healthy environment in bill to better protect Canadians from toxics

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ECOJUSTICE, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND BREAST CANCER ACTION QUEBEC

    Parliament must prioritize modernization of Canadian Environmental Protection Act

    OTTAWA/TRADITIONAL, UNCEDED TERRITORY OF THE ALGONQUIN ANISHNAABEG PEOPLE –

    Environmental and health groups have welcomed the introduction of Bill C-28: Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act that will modernize Canada’s most important environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). These groups urge all political parties to prioritize passage of Bill C-28 with improvements. 

    Bill C-28 includes amendments to CEPA recognizing – for the first time in federal law – the right to a healthy environment . 156 UN member states already recognize this right in law, treaties and constitutions. The recognition of a right to a healthy environment in CEPA is an important step forward.  However, the bill should ensure that this right has a positive impact on the lives of everyone in Canada, especially vulnerable populations who have long been denied environmental justice and disproportionately experience cumulative impacts of multiple interacting hazards. 

    Bill C-28 gives greater authority to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to prohibit the use of substances of the highest risk, although loopholes if not removed could allow for ongoing use. The Minister must endeavour to look for safer alternatives to dangerous substances.

    It is encouraging that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has committed to a new regulation to require ingredient labelling of everyday products including flame retardants in furniture and the complete disclosure of chemicals in cosmetics and cleaning products. The Minister must commit to adopting this regulation as soon as possible. 

    Bill C-28 is important as we continue to face the COVID-19 pandemic. A strengthened CEPA will be the backbone of a green and just recovery. Everyone in Canada needs adequate protection from environmental pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals that threaten their health and increase their chances of developing serious illnesses.

    All political parties must now make Bill C-28 a political priority. MPs must work together to move this bill into committee for consideration and strengthening amendments as soon as possible. Canadians cannot wait another 21 years to reform Canada’s most important environmental law.

    CEPA is the legislation that is intended to protect the environment and people in Canada and the environment safe from toxic chemicals, harmful substances, pollution and wastes. This law regulates the release of pollution and the use of toxic chemicals in consumer products – a source of our daily exposure to toxics. 

    A report from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2017 recommended sweeping reforms to the law, which dates back to 1999. 

    Jennifer Beeman, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action Quebec said: Breast Cancer Action Quebec has been educating on toxic chemicals and their health effects for decades. Citizens know about the very serious health problems like cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, impacts on the immune system associated with flame retardants in furniture, BPA/BPS in cash receipts and the lining of canned goods, phthalates in air fresheners, dryer sheets, perfumes and cosmetics and now highly toxic PFAS in our water, among many other chemicals.  What citizens don’t understand is why we have these problems. Our toxics regulatory system has been failing us badly, but the federal government, with this proposed reform, has a real opportunity to protect the health of Canadian citizens and our environment. We need to get this reform right.

    Dr. Ojistoh Horn, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment Board Member said: “As a Mohawk physician I understand that the health of my community is connected directly to the health of the land. I have seen the impacts of toxic exposures on Indigenous peoples. CEPA reform based on science and justice is necessary to ensure all people – Indigenous peoples, racialized people, workers – are fully protected from toxic exposures. In the spirit of the Two Row Wampum, this legislation needs to ensure that the voice of the people are listened to when concerns about the health of the environment are made. We physicians are doing everything we can right now to care for our communities during this pandemic. Now that this legislation is announced, we need and expect all parties to do everything you can to ensure that it moves forward quickly and provides proper protection for the health of all people. “

    Lisa Gue, senior policy analyst, David Suzuki Foundation, said: 

    “If passed, Bill C-28 would be the first federal law to recognize the human right to a healthy environment – a long-overdue paradigm shift that will help ensure all people in Canada benefit from environmental protection measures. Too often, pollution and environmental degradation harm vulnerable people and disadvantaged communities disproportionately. Bill C-28 could start to reverse this trend by applying a human rights lens to decision-making under CEPA, and requiring much-needed protections for vulnerable populations.”

    Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence said:  “Canadians are exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals every year. They cause cancer, trick our immune and hormone systems and wreak havoc to ecosystems. We all deserve to be protected from these chemicals, in particular those whose race, physiology or economic status means that they have been disproportionately put in harm’s way. Strengthening CEPA is our last best chance to put the health of people ahead of the profits of chemical companies.”

    Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Ecojustice Healthy Communities program director said:

    “Ecojustice is pleased to see long-overdue reforms to CEPA introduced in the House of Commons today. We now urge all parties to work together to move this bill through the legislative process and make it law as soon as possible.  

    For too long, an out-of-date CEPA has left Canadians — often the most vulnerable populations in our society — exposed to dangerous levels of toxic pollution and chemicals.  A strong CEPA that enshrines every person in Canada’s right to a healthy environment in federal law will be an essential tool for protecting human health and the environment in the face of 21st-century threats.”

     

    – 30 –

    To request an interview, please contact:

    Sarah Jamal, Environmental Defence, sjamal@environmentaldefence.ca

    ABOUT Breast Cancer Action Quebec: BCAQ is a feminist, environmental health organization dedicated to the prevention of breast cancer. In partnership with a wide range of local, regional and national organizations, we work for systemic changes based on social justice principles to prevent breast cancer and a range of diseases in women, with a particular focus on the gendered and racialized dynamics of toxic exposures. 

    ABOUT Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment: CAPE is a physician-directed non-profit organization working to secure human health by protecting the planet. For further information, visit www.cape.ca.

    ABOUT the David Suzuki Foundation (DavidSuzuki.org): DSF is a leading Canadian environmental non-profit organization, founded in 1990. We collaborate with all people in Canada, including government and business, to conserve the environment and find solutions that will create a sustainable Canada through evidence-based research, public engagement and policy work. We operate in English and French, with offices in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    ABOUT Ecojustice: Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

     

    The post Environmental health advocates welcome first federal recognition of right to a healthy environment in bill to better protect Canadians from toxics appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Environmental Experts Available to Comment on 2021 Federal Budget

    Ottawa, Ont. – The federal budget to be tabled Monday, April 19, 2021 will signal the government’s environmental priorities as the country continues to grapple with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Environmental Defence spokespeople are available to comment on spending related to a green and just recovery, fossil fuel subsidies (including spending on fossil hydrogen and carbon capture) and production (including petrochemicals and plastic), chemicals management, Great Lakes water quality and other environmental issues.

    WHAT: Interview opportunities on the 2021 federal budget

    WHEN: In advance of and following the federal budget release on Monday April 19, 2021

    WHERE: Ottawa and Toronto – available by virtual connection or phone

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Environmental Experts Available to Comment on 2021 Federal Budget appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ontario Government Passes Bill 257: Planning Act Amendments That Unleash Sprawl MZOs From Basic Planning Rules

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ECOJUSTICE, ONTARIO NATURE

    Province brushes aside expert warnings about threat to the environment, the rule of law – and the future solvency of municipal governments

    Toronto, Ont. – Yesterday, the Government of Ontario used its majority to force passage of Bill 257 – including Schedule 3, which amends the Planning Act to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing nearly unchecked power to fast-track development on precious farmland and significant natural areas across the province. The revised law exempts Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) from requirements to be consistent with fundamental land use planning principles and requirements, set out in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

    The government has used Bill 257, the Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021, as a Trojan horse to stage its attack on environmentally sensitive lands. It has ignored near-unanimous warnings from farm organizations, municipalities, environmental NGOs, legal practitioners, and thousands of other Ontarians about the on-the-ground dangers that the changes pose to the rule of law in Ontario.

    “Bill 257’s amendments to the Planning Act turn MZOs – tools which are already flagrantly abused – into blunt instruments for sweeping aside any concern that stands in the way of a favoured developer’s project. The result will be to expose people to floods and landslides, pave over much of our best remaining farmland, woodland, and wetlands, and burden municipal governments with even more unsustainable neighborhoods that lack enough density to support their own maintenance, operations and services” said Phil Pothen, Ontario Environment Program Manager at Environmental Defence.

    “Our farmland and natural areas are now vulnerable to the whims of the Minister,” says Caroline Schultz at Ontario Nature. “MZOs jeopardize the many benefits that these places provide, including flood control, local food, clean water, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and more.”

    MZOs are issued without public notice or opportunity for appeal, sidestepping planning rules around public consultation. Now, with the Bill 257 changes, they can no longer be challenged in the courts, regardless of potential adverse environmental, social or economic impacts. This situation is compounded by last December’s amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act forcing Conservation Authorities to acquiesce to MZOs even where they know it will expose Ontarians to flooding, landslides or other environmental hazards.

    “The Ontario government has introduced Bill 257 to provide legal cover for its unlawful use of MZOs. This bill puts protected wetlands and natural features across Ontario at risk of being destroyed” said Laura Bowman, Ecojustice lawyer. “It is a replay of the strategy the provincial government used to tear up Ontario’s climate laws in 2018, and to gut environmental assessment in Bill 197 last year. Break the law, then rewrite the law to try to cure their illegal conduct.”

    With Bill 257, the government is depriving land use planners, elected councils and other community members of the leverage that they need to insist that developers comply with the PPS. It has undermined the rule of law and procedural fairness that we expect in Ontario.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE: Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defence clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    About Ontario Nature: Ontario Nature protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement. Ontario Nature is a charitable organization representing more than 30,000 members and supporters, and more than 150 member groups across Ontario.

    About Ecojustice: Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

    -30-

    For more information and to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    Sean O’Shea, Ecojustice, soshea@ecojustice.ca

    John Hassell, Ontario Nature, johnh@ontarionature.org

    The post Ontario Government Passes Bill 257: Planning Act Amendments That Unleash Sprawl MZOs From Basic Planning Rules appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New Mexico Governor Signs Historic Legislation to End Qualified Immunity

    SANTA FE, NM (April 7, 2021) – Today, New Mexico became the second state in the nation to abolish qualified immunity when Governor Lujan Grisham signed the New Mexico Civil Rights Act into law. In addition to eliminating qualified immunity, this historic legislation will allow New Mexicans – including the wrongfully convicted – to recover damages from the government when their constitutional rights are violated while also providing incentives for government employees to respect and uphold constitutional rights.

    “Qualified immunity is a court-created doctrine that allows public officials to escape accountability after they engage in misconduct, even when their actions send an innocent person to prison. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act represents an historic culture shift in the fight for real accountability in law enforcement, and we applaud Governor Lujan Grisham for signing it into law,” said Laurie Roberts, a State Policy Advocate for the Innocence Project. 

    The bill received widespread support from a bipartisan coalition of organizations including the Innocence Project, Americans for Prosperity, American Civil Liberties Union, Institute for Justice, National Police Accountability Project, and Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, founders of Ben & Jerry’s.

    “HB 4 is an incredible victory for the people of New Mexico. For those harmed by government officials, it has often been impossible to hold anyone accountable. Fortunately, with this Civil Rights Act we are tipping the scales toward justice,” said Barron Jones, Senior Policy Strategist for the ACLU of New Mexico.

    Since 2015, there have been 120 fatal police shootings in New Mexico, representing one of the highest rates of police shootings, according to The Washington Post. Last month, the United States Supreme Court sided with a New Mexico woman who was shot by state police after fleeing a wrongful arrest. The case will allow more excessive force lawsuits against police to go forward, and is another sign of the turning tide against qualified immunity.

    “There is wide agreement across ideological lines that qualified immunity is simply bad policy,” said Burly Cain, Executive Director of Americans for Prosperity New Mexico. “When a police officer acting in an official government capacity violates a citizen’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity protects them from liability. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act finally fixes this injustice.”

    Before the Civil Rights Act, state law did not provide a direct way for New Mexicans to enforce their personal rights and privileges granted by the state constitution. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act will finally ensure that individual constitutional rights are enforced in every community, regardless of race, class, or zip code. Further, by prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense, HB4 will encourage government agencies to enact systemic reforms before abuses cause a wrongful conviction. 

    “I came within nine days of execution for a crime I didn’t commit and qualified immunity prevented me from holding responsible the sheriff’s deputies who committed egregious misconduct and stole my freedom,” said New Mexico exoneree Ron Keine. “I commend the legislature and Governor for finally addressing the injustice of qualified immunity. I hope those few officers who prey on the public will think twice before victimizing the people of New Mexico.” 

    Ron and three others were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for a 1974 Albuquerque murder, based primarily on testimony from a witness who later admitted that she gave false statements after hours of coercive and threatening questions by Bernallilo County Sheriff’s deputies. The men were exonerated in 1975 but were unable to hold anyone in law enforcement accountable in civil court.

    Bills addressing qualified immunity have been introduced in 19 states and the United States Congress, and several states, including Colorado and Connecticut, have ended or curtailed the legal protection. In late March, New York City became the first municipality in the country to restrict the use of qualified immunity.

    With the Governor’s signature, the law will take effect on July 1, 2021.

    About the Innocence Project 

    The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. www.innocenceproject.org

    The post New Mexico Governor Signs Historic Legislation to End Qualified Immunity appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • New Mexico Governor Signs Historic Legislation to End Qualified Immunity

    SANTA FE, NM (April 7, 2021) – Today, New Mexico became the second state in the nation to abolish qualified immunity when Governor Lujan Grisham signed the New Mexico Civil Rights Act into law. In addition to eliminating qualified immunity, this historic legislation will allow New Mexicans – including the wrongfully convicted – to recover damages from the government when their constitutional rights are violated while also providing incentives for government employees to respect and uphold constitutional rights.

    “Qualified immunity is a court-created doctrine that allows public officials to escape accountability after they engage in misconduct, even when their actions send an innocent person to prison. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act represents an historic culture shift in the fight for real accountability in law enforcement, and we applaud Governor Lujan Grisham for signing it into law,” said Laurie Roberts, a State Policy Advocate for the Innocence Project. 

    The bill received widespread support from a bipartisan coalition of organizations including the Innocence Project, Americans for Prosperity, American Civil Liberties Union, Institute for Justice, National Police Accountability Project, and Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, founders of Ben & Jerry’s.

    “HB 4 is an incredible victory for the people of New Mexico. For those harmed by government officials, it has often been impossible to hold anyone accountable. Fortunately, with this Civil Rights Act we are tipping the scales toward justice,” said Barron Jones, Senior Policy Strategist for the ACLU of New Mexico.

    Since 2015, there have been 120 fatal police shootings in New Mexico, representing one of the highest rates of police shootings, according to The Washington Post. Last month, the United States Supreme Court sided with a New Mexico woman who was shot by state police after fleeing a wrongful arrest. The case will allow more excessive force lawsuits against police to go forward, and is another sign of the turning tide against qualified immunity.

    “There is wide agreement across ideological lines that qualified immunity is simply bad policy,” said Burly Cain, Executive Director of Americans for Prosperity New Mexico. “When a police officer acting in an official government capacity violates a citizen’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity protects them from liability. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act finally fixes this injustice.”

    Before the Civil Rights Act, state law did not provide a direct way for New Mexicans to enforce their personal rights and privileges granted by the state constitution. The New Mexico Civil Rights Act will finally ensure that individual constitutional rights are enforced in every community, regardless of race, class, or zip code. Further, by prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense, HB4 will encourage government agencies to enact systemic reforms before abuses cause a wrongful conviction. 

    “I came within nine days of execution for a crime I didn’t commit and qualified immunity prevented me from holding responsible the sheriff’s deputies who committed egregious misconduct and stole my freedom,” said New Mexico exoneree Ron Keine. “I commend the legislature and Governor for finally addressing the injustice of qualified immunity. I hope those few officers who prey on the public will think twice before victimizing the people of New Mexico.” 

    Ron and three others were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for a 1974 Albuquerque murder, based primarily on testimony from a witness who later admitted that she gave false statements after hours of coercive and threatening questions by Bernallilo County Sheriff’s deputies. The men were exonerated in 1975 but were unable to hold anyone in law enforcement accountable in civil court.

    Bills addressing qualified immunity have been introduced in 19 states and the United States Congress, and several states, including Colorado and Connecticut, have ended or curtailed the legal protection. In late March, New York City became the first municipality in the country to restrict the use of qualified immunity.

    With the Governor’s signature, the law will take effect on July 1, 2021.

    About the Innocence Project 

    The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. www.innocenceproject.org

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Innocence Project Applauds the Creation of a Forensic Science Task Force in Michigan

    (Lansing, MI – April 2, 2021) The Innocence Project, WMU-Cooley Innocence Project, and the Michigan Innocence Clinic today recognized Governor Whitmer and the State of Michigan for moving to create a Task Force on Forensic Science by executive order to strengthen forensic disciplines, recommend best practices and investigate issues that may arise within crime labs. 

    “Misapplied forensic science has been a contributing factor in many proven wrongful convictions in Michigan,” said Marla Mitchell-Cichon, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Counsel to the Cooley Innocence Project. “This executive order marks a major step towards both improving the quality of forensic science in Michigan, and also rebuilding trust in the criminal justice process and preventing future wrongful convictions on the basis of bad forensic science.” 

    The criminal justice system relies on forensic science in making determinations of life and liberty. If methodologies are not properly overseen, regulated, and updated according to the latest standards and science it can lend itself to wrongful convictions and harm public safety. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 131 wrongfully convicted people have been exonerated in Michigan, with 20 percent of the cases involving false or misleading forensic evidence as a factor that led to the wrongful incarceration. 

    “We are thrilled to hear that the Governor has established this critical task force and we look forward to working with task force members as they develop recommendations on how to ensure that outdated and misapplied forensic science does not continue to play a role in causing wrongful convictions,” said Dave Moran, Co-founder and present Co-Director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic.

    The cost of wrongful convictions is high, both emotionally and fiscally. In cases where an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, the real perpetrator often remains free and is able to commit additional crimes and jeopardize public safety. Michigan has paid nearly $8 million in settlements for cases involving flawed forensics and over $34 million through civil actions filed for wrongful convictions across the state. Changed standards and practices in the areas of arson, composite bullet lead analysis, and forensic odontology, amongst others, have garnered national attention and have spotlighted the need for a dedicated commission to oversee forensic science. 

    The Michigan Forensic Task Force will:

    • Act in an advisory capacity to the Governor and Director of State Police.
    • Review the state of forensic science in Michigan.
    • Develop recommendations to strengthen forensic science methodologies and practices in the state and develop recommendations to improve the practice, delivery, and use of forensic science in Michigan.
    • Develop recommendations for statewide protocols for disclosure of negligence or misconduct by employees at forensic science providers and develop recommendations for a process allowing members of the public to report alleged professional negligence or misconduct related to the practice or use of forensic science.
    • Develop recommendations for a post-conviction notification procedure to notify parties affected by misconduct, negligence, or misapplication of forensic science.
    • Develop recommendations for best practices for individuals who practice or apply forensic science in the criminal justice system.
    • Develop a procedure for updating stakeholders on developments in forensic science.
    • Issue findings by December 31, 2021.

    The post The Innocence Project Applauds the Creation of a Forensic Science Task Force in Michigan appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • The Innocence Project Applauds the Creation of a Forensic Science Task Force in Michigan

    (Lansing, MI – April 2, 2021) The Innocence Project, WMU-Cooley Innocence Project, and the Michigan Innocence Clinic today recognized Governor Whitmer and the State of Michigan for moving to create a Task Force on Forensic Science by executive order to strengthen forensic disciplines, recommend best practices and investigate issues that may arise within crime labs. 

    “Misapplied forensic science has been a contributing factor in many proven wrongful convictions in Michigan,” said Marla Mitchell-Cichon, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Counsel to the Cooley Innocence Project. “This executive order marks a major step towards both improving the quality of forensic science in Michigan, and also rebuilding trust in the criminal justice process and preventing future wrongful convictions on the basis of bad forensic science.” 

    The criminal justice system relies on forensic science in making determinations of life and liberty. If methodologies are not properly overseen, regulated, and updated according to the latest standards and science it can lend itself to wrongful convictions and harm public safety. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 131 wrongfully convicted people have been exonerated in Michigan, with 20 percent of the cases involving false or misleading forensic evidence as a factor that led to the wrongful incarceration. 

    “We are thrilled to hear that the Governor has established this critical task force and we look forward to working with task force members as they develop recommendations on how to ensure that outdated and misapplied forensic science does not continue to play a role in causing wrongful convictions,” said Dave Moran, Co-founder and present Co-Director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic.

    The cost of wrongful convictions is high, both emotionally and fiscally. In cases where an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, the real perpetrator often remains free and is able to commit additional crimes and jeopardize public safety. Michigan has paid nearly $8 million in settlements for cases involving flawed forensics and over $34 million through civil actions filed for wrongful convictions across the state. Changed standards and practices in the areas of arson, composite bullet lead analysis, and forensic odontology, amongst others, have garnered national attention and have spotlighted the need for a dedicated commission to oversee forensic science. 

    The Michigan Forensic Task Force will:

    • Act in an advisory capacity to the Governor and Director of State Police.
    • Review the state of forensic science in Michigan.
    • Develop recommendations to strengthen forensic science methodologies and practices in the state and develop recommendations to improve the practice, delivery, and use of forensic science in Michigan.
    • Develop recommendations for statewide protocols for disclosure of negligence or misconduct by employees at forensic science providers and develop recommendations for a process allowing members of the public to report alleged professional negligence or misconduct related to the practice or use of forensic science.
    • Develop recommendations for a post-conviction notification procedure to notify parties affected by misconduct, negligence, or misapplication of forensic science.
    • Develop recommendations for best practices for individuals who practice or apply forensic science in the criminal justice system.
    • Develop a procedure for updating stakeholders on developments in forensic science.
    • Issue findings by December 31, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ontario Government Set to Declare Open Season for Sprawl MZOs with Tabling of Schedule 3 Amendments to the Planning Act


    Province ignores warnings about threat to the environment, municipal budgets and rule of law

    Toronto, Ont. – Today, the Ontario government is forcing the third and final reading of Schedule 3 of Bill 257 – a Planning Act amendment that would give a single Minister nearly unchecked power to authorize virtually any form of development, almost anywhere in the province’s more populated areas. The new law would exempt Minister’s Zoning Orders – a tool that is already being misused at an unprecedented rate – from the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which sets the bare minimum standards for all municipal land use planning decisions.

    By putting Bill 257 – which is mostly about rural broadband internet – to a final vote with this extraneous ‘poison pill’ still attached, the government is ignoring near-unanimous warnings from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, environmental NGOs, legal practitioners, and thousands of other Ontarians. Those warnings were about the on-the-ground dangers Schedule 3 of Bill 257 would cause for towns and cities – and the grave threat it poses to the rule of law in Ontario.

    “Creating a route to approve developments that violate the Provincial Policy Statement would endanger the public, squander farmland and natural heritage, and saddle municipalities with costly ‘white elephant’ sprawl,” said Phil Pothen, Ontario Environment Program Manager, Environmental Defence.

    The on-the-ground danger arises because it is the Provincial Policy Statement Ontarians rely upon to mandate sound planning principles, outlined as follows:

    • avoi[ding] development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns
    • avoiding the destruction of farmland
    • efficiently use[ing] land and resources
    • minimiz[ing] negative impacts to air quality and climate change, and promot[ing] energy efficiency
    • support[ing] active transportation
    • Developing and planning [m]ajor facilities and sensitive land uses … to avoid, … effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, [and] minimize risk to public health and safety
    • prohibiting the destruction of Provincially Significant Wetlands, Coastal Wetlands, Significant Woodlands, Significant Wildlife Habitat, and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

    The threat to natural areas is also multiplied because the legislature has already removed the other safeguard against such development. Last December’s Schedule 6 amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act were designed to force Conservation Authorities to permit such destruction even where they know it would put Ontarians in harm’s way from flooding, landslides, or other such environmental hazards.

    While the direct application of this legislation is to Minister’s Zoning Orders, the creation of an exemption to the substance of land use planning restrictions, rather than just the standard process, would undermine the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement far beyond the territory directly subjected to such orders. That is because the possibility of an MZO exempt from planning rules would deprive expert land use planners and elected councils of leverage they need to insist upon compliance with PPS provisions that do not suit the interests of developers.

    At a deeper level, legal watchdogs have pointed out that Schedule 3 is anathema to the rule of law and procedural fairness that we expect in Ontario. First, this legislation – which purports to legalize MZOs issued contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement retroactively, as well as going forward, appears to have been conceived firstly as an attempt to frustrate government accountability for violations that had already been committed, such as Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature’s in-progress legal challenge of the Lower Duffins Creek MZO.

    “The land use planning system that Schedule 3 in Bill 257 creates going forward is also as antithetical to rule of law in Ontario,” adds Phil Pothen “Empowering one Cabinet Minister to approve developments case by case, without a transparent process or clear and enforceable rules constraining discretion, would undermine public confidence that development approvals are free of favoritism or influence, that none of us should be comfortable with.”

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    -30-

    For more information and to arrange an interview please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    The post Ontario Government Set to Declare Open Season for Sprawl MZOs with Tabling of Schedule 3 Amendments to the Planning Act appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Federal pesticide regulator flip-flops on proposed neonics ban after years of delay

    Canada failing to protect the environment from harmful pesticides, groups say

    OTTAWA – Decisions published today by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency will allow the widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides to continue, despite evidence of harm to wildlife and ecosystems. Environmental organizations say Canada is failing to protect the environment from harmful pesticides.  

    “It is outrageous that Canada’s pesticide regulator is not delivering on its own proposed ban on neonics. European countries stopped using these chemicals years ago,” said Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada. “These neonics posed unacceptable risks four years ago, so what happened to make them safe today?”

    “After years of delay, the decisions today are to cross our fingers and hope for the best,” said Lisa Gue, senior policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation. “Canada’s failure to take effective and timely action on neonics should serve as a wake-up call: Canada needs to come to terms with pesticides as a major threat to biodiversity.”

    The PMRA initiated reviews of these chemicals in 2016 to assess risks to aquatic ecosystems. The chemicals were found to be present in water samples at levels harmful to aquatic insects. In 2018, the agency proposed prohibiting outdoor agricultural uses of clothianidin and thiamethoxam. 

    The agency delayed final decisions for two years while considering additional industry data and other information. 

    In the final decisions, PMRA now says risks to aquatic insects will be addressed instead by reducing application rates. The decisions allow most uses of the pesticides to continue. The PMRA will require the new application rates to be added to product labels within two years. The groups are reviewing today’s decisions.

    “We are not convinced that tinkering with label restrictions will be effective in reducing concentrations of neonics in the environment. Certainly it will be less effective than the originally proposed ban,” said Charlotte Dawe, conservation and policy campaigner with the Wilderness Committee. 

    “Neonics kill beneficial insects, and insects are critical to functioning ecosystems and food production,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence. “A failure to reduce the threat of these poisons is an attack on all Canadians.”

    “Even the half-measures announced today won’t be fully implemented for another two years. Meanwhile, the widespread use of these chemicals continues to contaminate the environment and Canada is not applying the precautionary approach to pesticide registration,” said Kathleen Cooper of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. 

    Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that attack the nervous system of insects. Water-soluble and persistent, they are routinely detected in water samples. A large and growing body of research over the past decade points to harm to bees and other pollinators, aquatic invertebrates and other non-target species. For example, a 2020 study found that higher neonic concentration in agricultural wetlands are associated with significant declines in insect life. PMRA acknowledges that today’s decisions will lead to “temporary” loss in insect biomass.

    “Loss of insect biomass has consequences for wildlife up the food chain, from amphibians to bats and birds,” said Carolyn Callaghan, senior conservation biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Federation. 

    The European Union has committed to cutting pesticide use and risk in half by 2030 as part of its Biodiversity Strategy announced in May 2020.

    PMRA has said it will issue a final decision on a third neonic, imidacloprid, later this spring.

    -30-

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Sarah Jamal, Environmental Defence. sjamal@environmentaldefence.ca

    CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION – CANADIAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION – DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION – ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE – FRIENDS OF THE EARTH CANADA – WILDERNESS COMMITTEE

     

     

     

     

    The post Federal pesticide regulator flip-flops on proposed neonics ban after years of delay appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • New report reveals Canadian retailers falling behind U.S. companies in making major progress on chemical safety

    Canadian retailers failing on toxics

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE AND THE MIND THE STORE CAMPAIGN

    Couche-Tard, Metro, Sobeys, Tim Hortons, and Burger King receive an F grade for failing to take action on toxic chemicals

    Toronto, Ont. — A new report reveals that nearly 70 percent of North America’s largest retailers evaluated have improved their toxic chemical safety policies to help protect customers from harmful chemicals and plastics in products and packaging. Unfortunately, Canadian-based retailers continue to fall behind U.S. companies when it comes to their chemical policies.

    The fifth annual Who’s Minding the Store? retailer report card, released today, evaluated and graded the chemical policies and practices of 50 retail chains with more than 200,000 stores across the U.S. and Canada.

    In the largest-ever analysis of its kind, the report finds that companies are implementing more comprehensive chemical policies and achieving greater reductions over the last five years. Unfortunately, four of the six Canadian-owned companies earned a failing grade for their inaction to properly manage chemical risks: Alimentation Couche-Tard (Circle-K, Mac’s, Couche-Tard), Metro, Sobeys, and Restaurants Brand International (Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons). 

    “Evidence tells us that chemicals like PFAS in food packaging and bisphenols on receipts are dangerous. Fortunately many retailers are rising to the challenge by taking steps to make products safer,” says Tim Gray, executive director at Environmental Defence. “Market-leading Canadian retailers like Couche-Tard, Metro, Sobeys, and Tim Hortons, have no excuse for their inaction  to protect customers, workers and the environment from toxics.”

    Four North American retailers lead the pack by receiving the highest grades for their work to protect customers from toxic chemicals in products and packaging: Apple (A+), Target (A+), Whole Foods Market (A) and Sephora (A).

    Meanwhile, two Canadian companies received mediocre grades for their toxics policies. Loblaw Companies Ltd. (C), the parent company of Loblaws, No Frills, Real Canadian Superstore, Shoppers Drug Mart, T&T, and more, introduced a CSR target to transition to phenol-free (BPA and BPS-free) receipts by the end of this year. The company also previously completed the removal of triclosan and phthalates from its private-brand household and personal care products. However, to join the leaderboard, Loblaw should replace key harmful chemicals from beauty products of environmental justice concern, expand its policy on phthalates to other products and eliminate PFAS in food packaging.

    Additionally, Canadian Tire (D), which also includes Mark’s and Sport Chek, received points for eliminating six phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP, DNOP) from certain food contact products (e.g. kitchenware and reusable food containers, but not single-use food packaging); removed heavy metals from children’s, food contact and cosmetics products; eliminated volatile organic compounds from paints; and is completing its transition away from brominated flame retardants in all products. The company can improve its grade by eliminating all PFAS chemicals from household products and phasing out bisphenol-coated receipts.

    “We applaud retail leaders for stepping up to drive harmful chemicals out of consumer products and packaging,” explains report co-author and Mind the Store campaign director Mike Schade. “Despite a global pandemic and incredibly challenging year, retailers have continued to make substantial progress in reducing and eliminating classes of toxic chemicals like PFAS. Laggards like Canadian-based Burger King should join them.”

    In an unprecedented move in the history of the report card, two U.S.-based retailers have now committed to evaluating beauty products marketed to women of color for toxic chemicals found in those types of products, which helps address long-standing racial injustice and health inequity. Target and Rite Aid will specifically screen for toxic chemicals that are often found in these products, such as skin lightening cream and hair straighteners and relaxers. This follows the addition of new criteria in the report that challenges retailers to address this racial justice issue. Whole Foods Market has already banned some of these chemicals of concern (such as hydroquinone) in these products as well. 

    For a full list of the evaluated companies and their detailed grades, analysis of trends, recommendations, and more, visit RetailerReportCard.com.

    -30-

    For more information or interview requests, please contact:

    Sarah Jamal, Environmental Defence Canada, sjamal@environmentaldefence.ca

    ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.

    ABOUT THE MIND THE STORE CAMPAIGN: The national Mind the Store campaign, a program of Toxic-Free Future, challenges big retailers to eliminate toxic chemicals and replace them with safer alternatives. The campaign publishes the annual retailer report card that benchmarks and scores major retailers on their safer chemicals policies and implementation programs. 

    The post New report reveals Canadian retailers falling behind U.S. companies in making major progress on chemical safety appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Barry Scheck Testifies Before Congress on Pretrial Innocence Reforms

    Today, Barry Scheck, co-founder and special counsel at the Innocence Project testified before the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in support of the long-standing policy work being done around pretrial deficiencies that contribute to wrongful convictions. 

    “I appreciate Subcommittee Chairwoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Chairman Jerrold Nadler for convening today’s important hearing,” said Mr. Scheck. “Preventing wrongful convictions starts with many of the reforms we at the Innocence Project have long advocated for to make the system more just. We urge Congress to adopt these recommendations relating to pretrial reform, from robust discovery to holistic defense.” 

    At the hearing — “From Miranda to Gideon: A Call for Pretrial Reform” —  Mr. Scheck outlined the protocols necessary to pursue accurate and fair outcomes in the criminal legal process. His testimony also addressed practices and techniques that should be adopted or eradicated such as the prevention of false confessions, implementing more holistic defense, and ensuring fair discovery processes

    False confessions contributed to the wrongful convictions of 30% DNA exonerees in the United States. The Innocence Project advocates for the codification of policies requiring recorded interrogations and banning police deception, the latter of which is currently legal across the country. The Innocence Project also advocates for pretrial reliability hearings which are critical in assessing the validity and authenticity of confessions. 

    Innocence Project Director of Policy Rebecca Brown echoed Mr. Scheck’s testimony, “We urge Congress to pursue these changes in the pretrial system, including ensuring open file discovery practices and reliability assessments of confession evidence; prohibiting law enforcements’ deceptive techniques in interrogations; addressing the trial penalty; and holistic representation. These changes — rooted in the presumption of innocence, a pillar of our justice system — can establish a more just and fair criminal legal process.”

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Barry Scheck Testifies Before Congress on Pretrial Innocence Reforms

    Today, Barry Scheck, co-founder and special counsel at the Innocence Project testified before the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in support of the long-standing policy work being done around pretrial deficiencies that contribute to wrongful convictions. 

    “I appreciate Subcommittee Chairwoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Chairman Jerrold Nadler for convening today’s important hearing,” said Mr. Scheck. “Preventing wrongful convictions starts with many of the reforms we at the Innocence Project have long advocated for to make the system more just. We urge Congress to adopt these recommendations relating to pretrial reform, from robust discovery to holistic defense.” 

    At the hearing — “From Miranda to Gideon: A Call for Pretrial Reform” — Mr. Scheck outlined the protocols necessary to pursue accurate and fair outcomes in the criminal legal process. His testimony also addressed practices and techniques that should be adopted or eradicated such as the prevention of false confessions, implementing more holistic defense, and ensuring fair discovery processes.

    False confessions contributed to the wrongful convictions of 30% DNA exonerees in the United States. The Innocence Project advocates for the codification of policies requiring recorded interrogations and banning police deception, the latter of which is currently legal across the country. The Innocence Project also advocates for pretrial reliability hearings which are critical in assessing the validity and authenticity of confessions. 

    Innocence Project Director of Policy Rebecca Brown echoed Mr. Scheck’s testimony, “We urge Congress to pursue these changes in the pretrial system, including ensuring open file discovery practices and reliability assessments of confession evidence; prohibiting law enforcements’ deceptive techniques in interrogations; addressing the trial penalty; and holistic representation. These changes — rooted in the presumption of innocence, a pillar of our justice system — can establish a more just and fair criminal legal process.”

    The post Barry Scheck Testifies Before Congress on Pretrial Innocence Reforms appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • Statement from Keith Brooks, Programs Director, on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of Canada’s carbon pricing law

    Environmental Defence acted as an intervenor in the case, represented by the Canadian Environmental Law Association

    This ruling is good news for all Canadians. Carbon pricing is one of the most effective tools the government can use to help reduce carbon pollution. It has been shown to work across Canada. That’s why Environmental Defence participated as an intervenor in the case, in support of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

    The constitutionality of the carbon pricing law was previously upheld in Ontario and Saskatchewan. And it is not surprising that the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed with these lower court rulings. The challenge from the provinces was a complete waste of millions of taxpayer dollars, and a distraction from the urgent need to fight climate change.

    Climate change is already causing flooding, forest fires, heat waves, deaths, and billions of dollars of damage in Canada. Indeed, the Supreme Court affirmed that climate change is “an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world.” Canadians want their governments to take action, and the courts have now conclusively affirmed that the federal government has the power to do so. With this case behind us, we hope that our provincial and federal governments can work together on this and other necessary programs to develop a low-carbon future.

    Carbon pricing is just one of the tools that Canada is using to fight climate change, but we are still far from being on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit warming to 1.5 degrees as agreed to in Paris in 2015. The federal and provincial governments must do more to address emissions in Canada. Hopefully this ruling clears the way for that.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abruade@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post Statement from Keith Brooks, Programs Director, on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of Canada’s carbon pricing law appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Broad-spectrum of groups welcome federal vote on environmental racism bill

    Urgent need for national strategy and law to address environmental racism

    Ottawa/The traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishnaabeg people  – Social justice organizations, health organizations, academics, rights campaigners and environmental groups have welcomed the support shown by the majority of MPs for the National Strategy to Redress Environmental Racism Act (Bill C-230) and urge all MPs to make this important legislation law at the bill’s second reading in the House of Commons today. 

    But the work is far from over. Canada is long-overdue in addressing its legacy of environmental racism. 

    All parties must support Bill C-230 through the parliamentary process so that it can become law. 

    The Private Members Bill tabled by Lenore Zann, (Cumberland—Colchester), would finally require Canada to develop a strategy to address environmental racism. The United States has collected race-based and income data on environmental pollution since 1994. The new Biden administration has made environmental justice central to its mandate. It’s time for Canada to step up.

    Environmental racism refers to the disproportionate impacts on Indigenous, Black, and other racialized communities from polluting industries and other environmental hazards. These toxic burdens have been linked to high rates of cancer, reproductive diseases, respiratory illnesses, and other health problems, all of which only compound the cultural loss resulting from poisoning of country foods and destruction of culturally significant places.

    Bill C-230 proposes a national strategy that examines the link between race, socio-economic status, and environmental risk, collects information and statistics about the impact of pollution on racialized and low-income communities and addresses environmental racism through a series of federal government actions. 

    From the decision approximately 60 years ago to offload pulp mill effluent into Pictou Landing First Nation’s once-pristine Boat Harbour, and toxic landfills placed in the African Nova Scotian communities of Shelburne and Lincolnville, to mercury contamination in Grassy Narrows First Nation, petrochemical facilities in Chemical Valley in Ontario adjacent the Aamjiwnaang First Nation and hydro megadams creating a risk to Indigenous communities in British Columbia and Labrador, Canada’s legacy of environmental racism can no longer be ignored.

    -30-

    Please see here for quotes from groups and individuals supporting Bill C-230

    For more information or to request an interview, please contact:

    Sarah Jamal, Environmental Defence, sjamal@environmentaldefence.ca

    Sign on groups and individuals:

    Dr. Ingrid Waldon, Ph.D. and Naolo Charles Co-Founders, National Anti-Environmental Racism Coalition

    Tim Gray, Executive Director of Environmental Defence

    Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Healthy Communities Program Director, Ecojustice

    Tina Northrup, Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law

    Manvi Bhalla, President and Co-Founder of Shake Up The Establishment

    Dr. Ellen Sweeney, Board of Directors, Prevent Cancer Now

    Jennifer Beeman, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action Québec

    Gretchen Fitzgerald, National Program Director, Sierra Club Canada Foundation

    Andre Forsythe, Executive Director, School For Climate

    Vanessa Hartley, Chair South End Environmental Injustice Society (SEED)

    Louise Delisle, Advising Chair, Founder, South End Environmental Injustice Society (SEED)

    Siobhan Takala, Co Founder / Co Director of Let’s Sprout

    John Nathaniel Gertler, Member of La coalition étudiante pour un virage environnemental et social (la CEVES)

    Lori Ransom, Interim Executive Director of KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives

    Isaac Kadende

    Kenny Gbadebo, ED, YCA Inc.

    Dr.  Jane McArthur, Toxics Campaign Coordinator at Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE/ACME)

    Eugene Kung, Staff Lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law

    Aucha Stewart, Law Student Member, Windsor Law Cities and Climate Action Forum (CCAF)

    Sam Hopkins, Representative member of Cheetahs for Change at Charles P. Allen High School

    Lisa Gue, Senior Researcher and Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation 

    Gauri Sreenivasan, Director of Policy and Campaigns, Nature Canada

     

    The post Broad-spectrum of groups welcome federal vote on environmental racism bill appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement from Keith Brooks, Programs Director, on the 2021 Ontario Budget

    Toronto, Ont. – We are disappointed with this budget. We were hopeful that the Ontario government would take this opportunity to revisit and reset its hostile approach to the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.

    The near-term focus on COVID-19 and the additional assistance for families, citizens, and small businesses will be appreciated. However, governments around the world are making plans for a green recovery from COVID-19 and putting climate change at the centre of their efforts to create jobs. Ontario’s budget barely references climate change. And it doesn’t provide any funding for even the few climate change programs the government has already committed to in its Environment Plan. Where is the $400 million promised for the emissions reduction fund, for example?

    The section on Protecting Ontario’s Environment is full of contradictions. For example, the government touts Ontario’s clean electricity supply, though the budget omits that the electricity sector is projected to see a 300 per cent rise in emissions by 2030 due to an increased reliance on natural gas. Likewise, that section asserts that relatively minor spending on data-gathering will see that “flood risk is reduced,” even though the government recently undermined the ability of Conservation Authorities to stop dangerous development in floodplains and hazard areas.

    We are glad that there is no mention of funding set aside for the controversial Highway 413. The next step must be for the government to cancel this unnecessary project which would cost Ontario at least $6 billion.

    Unfortunately, the Bradford Bypass, otherwise known as the Holland Marsh Expressway, is mentioned in the budget. This highway would bulldoze through the Greenbelt and the Holland Marsh, one of the most productive agricultural specialty crop areas in the country and one of the largest wetlands in the region, causing severe stormwater and groundwater impacts.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    – 30 –

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post Statement from Keith Brooks, Programs Director, on the 2021 Ontario Budget appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement from Julia Levin on the United Kingdom ending public finance for overseas fossil fuels

    Ottawa, Ont. – The UK took a groundbreaking step by announcing it will no longer provide financial support for overseas fossil fuel projects. With this move, which supports the global shift to renewable energy, the UK is showing true leadership. It’s clear – momentum on ending public financing for fossil fuels is snowballing, with President Biden and European Union foreign ministers having also made significant promises.

    Meanwhile, Canada ranks second worst of the G20 countries for public finance to oil and gas. On a per capita basis, we’re the worst. Despite that shameful claim to fame, the only action we’ve seen from crown corporation Export Development Canada is an embarrassingly weak target to reduce support for carbon-intensive industries from $22 billion to $19 billion.

    Continuing to back oil and gas is entirely incompatible with a safe climate and healthy future. The leadership shown by the UK – and commitments made by the US and the European Union – shows clearly that Canada can also shift our public finance away from fossil fuels.

    Background information

    • Canada’s export credit agency, Export Development Canada, provides on average more than CAD 13 billion annually to oil and gas.
    • The UK is the first major economy to move its export credit agency (ECA) out of fossil fuels.
    • The UK phase-out of oil, gas, and coal financing applies to international aid funding, trade promotion and export finance provided by the British export agency, UK Export Finance (UKEF). Over the past four years the U.K. has supported $35 billion dollars of British oil and gas exports through trade promotion and export finance.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (www.environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities

    -30-

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post Statement from Julia Levin on the United Kingdom ending public finance for overseas fossil fuels appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement from Julia Levin on the United Kingdom ending public finance for overseas fossil fuels

    Ottawa, Ont. – The UK took a groundbreaking step by announcing it will no longer provide financial support for overseas fossil fuel projects. With this move, which supports the global shift to renewable energy, the UK is showing true leadership. It’s clear – momentum on ending public financing for fossil fuels is snowballing, with President Biden and European Union foreign ministers having also made significant promises.

    Meanwhile, Canada ranks second worst of the G20 countries for public finance to oil and gas. On a per capita basis, we’re the worst. Despite that shameful claim to fame, the only action we’ve seen from crown corporation Export Development Canada is an embarrassingly weak target to reduce support for carbon-intensive industries from $22 billion to $19 billion.

    Continuing to back oil and gas is entirely incompatible with a safe climate and healthy future. The leadership shown by the UK – and commitments made by the US and the European Union – shows clearly that Canada can also shift our public finance away from fossil fuels.

    Background information

    • Canada’s export credit agency, Export Development Canada, provides on average more than CAD 13 billion annually to oil and gas.
    • The UK is the first major economy to move its export credit agency (ECA) out of fossil fuels.
    • The UK phase-out of oil, gas, and coal financing applies to international aid funding, trade promotion and export finance provided by the British export agency, UK Export Finance (UKEF). Over the past four years the U.K. has supported $35 billion dollars of British oil and gas exports through trade promotion and export finance.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (www.environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities

    -30-

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence, bhayes@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post Statement from Julia Levin on the United Kingdom ending public finance for overseas fossil fuels appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Statement by Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature on the Pickering City Council vote to rescind its request for a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) allowing destruction of a portion of the Lower Duffins Creek wetland complex

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ONTARIO NATURE

    Toronto, Ont. – Last night, the Pickering City Council voted 7-0 to ask Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark to remove the western portion of the Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) that encompasses most of the provincially significant Lower Duffins Creek wetland that was threatened by development (approximately 50 acres). The eastern portion of the wetland, while within the MZO area, was never authorized for development, though it remains buffered by inadequate set-backs for development that still must be addressed if the MZO is modified.

    This vote is good news. It reflects the results of a concerted effort by Pickering residents and citizens across Ontario to demand that this wetland be protected from a planned warehouse development.

    Minister Clark has stated, in a letter to Pickering Mayor Ryan, that he is open to modifying the MZO to protect these rare and important wetlands. He has also indicated in a letter to Ajax Mayor Collier an interest in adding private lands to the Urban River Valley portion of the Greenbelt that encompasses the public lands along Duffins Creek. Based on the Pickering Council vote and strong public consensus, it is important that Minister Clark immediately either rescind the entire MZO or, at a minimum, modify it to remove the western portion of wetlands and restore the setback requirements for the development planned adjacent to the eastern portion of the wetlands. He should also add these lands to the Greenbelt as part of the current expansion process.

    Last night’s vote also reflects the public’s rejection of the government’s wider pro-sprawl agenda. We hope that what is happening here at Lower Duffins Creek will lead the government to rethink its reckless overuse of MZOs to approve sprawl, its undermining of Conservation Authorities, its proposed exemption of MZOs from the Provincial Policy Statement, its planned Highway 413 and Bradford Bypass through the Greenbelt, and its push to make municipalities lock in 30 more years of car-dependent sprawl, including the destruction of large swathes of rural land, by July, 2022.

    About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.

    About ONTARIO NATURE: (ontarionature.org) Ontario Nature protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement. A charitable organization, it represents more than 30,000 members and supporters, and more than 150 member groups across Ontario

    – 30 –

    For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

    John Hassell, Ontario Nature, johnh@ontarionature.org

     

    The post Statement by Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature on the Pickering City Council vote to rescind its request for a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) allowing destruction of a portion of the Lower Duffins Creek wetland complex appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Environmental groups secure halt to impending destruction of Lower Duffins Creek Wetland

    ECOJUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ONTARIO NATURE

     Ontario government must halt legal attacks on planning laws and repeal MZO

    Toronto, Ont./ Traditional territories of several First Nations including the Williams Treaties First Nations, Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas, and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation — Pickering Developments has committed to not destroy the Provincially Significant Wetlands and other natural features at Lower Duffins Creek in Pickering, Ontario. The commitment will remain in place until the Divisional Court hearing of the groups’ full Judicial Review application regarding the legality of the proposed development. 

    Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature, represented by Ecojustice agreed to an adjournment of their Court application after negotiating a legally enforceable undertaking  to prohibit any destructive activity of the provincially significant wetland and other natural heritage features. Later this morning the parties will ask the Ontario Divisional Court to review the commitment by Pickering Developments and make it enforceable through a court order. The groups reserved the right to return to Court immediately if any terms of the commitment by Pickering Developments are violated.

    The groups’ move to seek a Court-ordered stop to the planned destruction became necessary after Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was legally forced by the Provincial Government to issue a permit to begin destruction of the wetlands. This permit was issued with conditions on March 12th.

    This turn of events comes on the heels of the abandonment of this site as a candidate location for a warehousing facility by Amazon Canada, a stated willingness by Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to revoke or amend the MZO that purports to authorize destruction of the wetland, and an indication by the City of Pickering that they wish to reflect on the issue. 

    To protect the wetland, the City of Pickering must now request the repeal of the MZO that purports to authorise destruction of the wetland and Minister Clark must keep his commitment to respect Pickering’s wishes.

    Further, to secure the permanent protection of this wetland, and many other sensitive ecological sites and farmland across Ontario, the provincial government must remove Schedule 3 from Bill 257, now before the Legislature. Schedule 3 proposes to allow the Minister to use MZOs to override all provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act, effectively eliminating all natural heritage protection under Ontario’s municipal planning rules whenever an MZO is used.

    Laura Bowman, Ecojustice lawyer said:

    “We are pleased to get the resolution our clients wanted without the need to argue the motion.  The wetlands will be protected by the undertaking to the Court until the decision in our clients Judicial Review. Our clients are continuing the Judicial Review to quash the MZO in the long-term.”

    “The Ontario government has expressed a willingness to consult on a possible amendment to the MZO to protect the wetland and we expect that this consultation will include the public and First Nations so that a final resolution of this matter protecting the wetland from destruction can be achieved.”

    Tim Gray, executive director, Environmental Defence said:

    “We are glad to see the developer agree to a pause in their rush to destroy this key wetland. This victory shows the power of community members mobilizing to protect a place they value. However, the fight is not over until the Minister’s Zoning order is repealed and our planning laws and rules are respected.”

    “Lower Duffins Creek wetland’s destruction would be a disaster on its own but its loss would also signal that all wetlands, forests, and river valleys are beyond the protection of the law and at risk from rapacious developers.”

    Caroline Schultz, executive director, Ontario Nature said: 

    “There’s an insidious and accelerating pattern of undercutting environmental rules to facilitate reckless development projects in Ontario. Bill 257, which allows the government to ride roughshod over natural heritage protections, is the latest example. This war against nature has to stop.”   

    “As we grapple with the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, it’s unconscionable to pave over any of the Duffins Creek Wetland Complex. It would be contrary to the will of community and the long-term interest of Ontarians, as the public outcry against the  destruction of the Duffins Creek wetland has amply demonstrated.”

    Background

    TRCA issued a permit to Pickering Developments to undertake work on the property containing the wetland.  This permit ultimately would have allowed the developers to destroy a protected, rare coastal Great Lakes wetland. The wetland is instrumental for water filtration and flood mitigation, and is a critical refuge for wildlife.

    Last year, the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) to allow the construction of a warehouse and distribution facility on the wetlands. Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature, represented by Ecojustice, filed a judicial review against the Ontario government for this unlawful use of an MZO. 

    The Ontario government has now tabled the Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act (Bill 257) in an attempt to give retroactive cover to their illegal actions. 

    On March 5, the environmental groups filed an urgent motion to prevent the TRCA from allowing the developer to destroy this Provincially Significant Wetland. 

    The development project faces strong and growing opposition from local communities and First Nations who value its ecological and cultural benefits, from the TRCA’s Board of Directors and from citizens across Ontario and beyond. 

    – 30 – 

    For media inquiries

    Sarah Jamal, Environmental Defence, sjamal@environmentaldefence.ca

    Sean O’Shea, Ecojustice, soshea@ecojustice.ca

    John Hassell, Ontario Nature, johnh@ontarionature.org

     

    About:

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities. 

    Ontario Nature protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement. Ontario Nature is a charitable organization representing more than 30,000 members and supporters, and more than 150 member groups across Ontario.

     

    The post Environmental groups secure halt to impending destruction of Lower Duffins Creek Wetland appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Environmental groups file urgent motion to stop destruction of Lower Duffins Creek Wetland

    Ontario government is trying to run roughshod over its own planning laws

    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ECOJUSTICE, ONTARIO NATURE

    Toronto, Ont./ Traditional territories of several First Nations including the Huron-Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, Haudenosaunee, Chippewas, and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation — Environmental groups have applied for a motion to stay to prevent developers from destroying Provincially Significant Wetlands at Lower Duffins Creek in Pickering, Ontario. 

    Ecojustice, on behalf of Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature, filed the motion to stay with the Ontario Divisional Court following an application from a developer to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for a permit to begin construction on the wetlands. 

    On March 4, the Ontario government issued a regulation requiring the TRCA to issue a development permit to Pickering Developments by March 12. In effect, this permit will give the developers permission to destroy a protected, rare coastal Great Lakes wetland. Not only instrumental for water filtration and flood mitigation, the wetland is a critical refuge for wildlife.

    Last year, the Ontario Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs issued a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) to allow the construction of a warehouse and distribution facility on the wetlands. Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature, represented by Ecojustice, filed a judicial review against the Ontario government for this unlawful use of an MZO. 

    The Ontario government has now tabled the Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act (Bill 257) in an attempt to give retroactive cover to their illegal actions. 

    On March 5, the environmental groups filed an urgent motion to prevent the TRCA from allowing the developer to destroy this Provincially Significant Wetland. 

    Even as the Ontario government appears determined to ram through development on Duffins Creek, the project faces strong opposition from local communities, who value its ecological and cultural benefits, and from the TRCA’s Board of Directors. 

    Laura Bowman, Ecojustice lawyer said:

    “This case is crucial to ensuring limits to MZOs across Ontario. If the government is allowed to ignore protections for important coastal wetlands at Duffins Creek this threatens the environment and good planning across Ontario. 

    “The Ontario government has ignored its own planning laws by approving this development. The legality of the zoning authorization should be tested before the wetland is destroyed forever. This is why our clients have applied for an urgent motion to stay the work on the site.”

    Tim Gray, executive director, Environmental Defence said:

    “It is a sad day when we have to go to court to force our own government to obey Ontario law. It is even more shocking when the government seeks to gut those same laws to avoid being held accountable in court.”

    “Lower Duffins Creek wetland is rare, precious and valued. Its destruction would be a disaster on its own but its loss would also signal that all wetlands, forests, and river valleys are beyond the protection of the law and at risk from rapacious developers.”

    Caroline Schultz, executive director, Ontario Nature said: 

    “There’s an insidious and accelerating pattern of undercutting environmental rules to facilitate reckless development projects in Ontario. These are done against the will of communities and against the long-term interest of Ontarians. As we grapple with the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, it’s unconscionable to drain the Duffins Creek Wetland Complex.” 

    About:

    Ecojustice uses the power of the law to defend nature, combat climate change, and fight for a healthy environment. Its strategic, public interest lawsuits and advocacy lead to precedent-setting court decisions and law and policy that deliver lasting solutions to Canada’s most urgent environmental problems. As Canada’s largest environmental law charity, Ecojustice operates offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax.

    Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities. 

    Ontario Nature protects wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement. Ontario Nature is a charitable organization representing more than 30,000 members and supporters, and more than 150 member groups across Ontario.

    For media inquiries

    Sean O’Shea, Ecojustice, soshea@ecojustice.ca

    John Hassell, Ontario Nature, johnh@ontarionature.org

    Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, abraude@environmentaldefence.ca

     

    The post Environmental groups file urgent motion to stop destruction of Lower Duffins Creek Wetland appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • BREAKING: Idaho is the 36th State to Compensate the Innocent

    Today, Governor Brad Little signed ‘The Wrongful Conviction Act’ into law, providing state compensation for the wrongfully convicted in Idaho. This makes Idaho the 36th state to adopt a wrongful conviction compensation law. 

    The ceremony took place at the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls which is the hometown of Christopher Tapp, who was exonerated of murder in 2019, after spending 20 years wrongfully imprisoned. Mr. Tapp was exonerated based on new DNA evidence that identified the real perpetrator many years after he was coerced into falsely confessing to the crime. He was convicted despite no physical evidence connecting him to the crime. Alongside fellow Idahoan exoneree Charles Fain, Mr. Tapp has been a strong advocate for this legislation.

    Read: DNA Testing Identifies Actual Perpetrator in 1996 Idaho Falls Rape and Murder, Confirming Christopher Tapp’s Innocence

    The new law, which was sponsored by Senator Doug Ricks and Representative Barbara Ehardt, includes a fixed sum of $62,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment or $75,000 for each year wrongfully served on death row. The average amount offered nationally through state compensation laws is $68,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. In addition to Washington D.C., eighteen states offer $50,000 or more for each year of wrongful incarceration with many laws providing additional compensation for years served on death row or on post-release supervision. The law also compensates $25,000 per year wrongfully served on sex offender registry or post release supervision and all compensation claims will be processed by the courts

    For Idaho exonerees like Mr. Fain and Mr. Tapp, who were left without support for fundamentals like housing, transportation, health services or insurance, and with a criminal record that is rarely cleared despite innocence, the punishment lingers long after innocence has been confirmed and they’ve been released from prison.  Compensation will help exonerees rebuild the lives they lost to a wrongful conviction.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Idaho Just Passed a Law to Compensate the Innocent

    Today, Governor Brad Little signed the “Wrongful Conviction Act” into law, providing state compensation for the wrongfully convicted in Idaho. This makes Idaho the 36th state to adopt a wrongful conviction compensation law. 

    The ceremony took place at the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls, the hometown of Christopher Tapp, who spent 20 years wrongfully imprisoned until his exoneration in 2019. Mr. Tapp was exonerated from murder charges based on new DNA evidence that identified the real perpetrator many years after Mr. Tapp was coerced into falsely confessing to the crime. He was convicted despite no physical evidence connecting him to the crime.

    Alongside fellow Idahoan exoneree Charles Fain, Mr. Tapp has been a strong advocate for this legislation, working with the Innocence Project and the Idaho Innocence Project to pass this bill into law.

    Read: DNA Testing Identifies Actual Perpetrator in 1996 Idaho Falls Rape and Murder, Confirming Christopher Tapp’s Innocence

    The new law, which was sponsored by Senator Doug Ricks and Representative Barbara Ehardt, includes a fixed sum of $62,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment or $75,000 for each year wrongfully served on death row. The average amount offered nationally through state compensation laws is $68,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. In addition to Washington D.C., eighteen states offer $50,000 or more for each year of wrongful incarceration with many laws providing additional compensation for years served on death row or on post-release supervision. The law also compensates $25,000 per year wrongfully served on sex offender registry or post release supervision and all compensation claims will be processed by the courts

    For Idaho exonerees like Mr. Fain and Mr. Tapp, who were left without support for fundamentals like housing, transportation, health services or insurance, and with a criminal record that is rarely cleared despite innocence, the punishment lingers long after innocence has been confirmed and they’ve been released from prison. Compensation helps exonerees rebuild the lives they lost and acknowledges the unique horror of a wrongful conviction.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.