RCMP labs biased, Driskell's lawyer tells inquiry

James Driskell's former lawyer has testified that crime labs are biased in favour of police a trait he says landedDriskell in jail for 12 years on a wrongful murder conviction.

Greg Brodsky, who represented James Driskell at his 1991 murder trial, alleged that crime labs were biased while speaking in Winnipeg on Wednesday at the inquiry into the case.

"It's not like a collection of facts. Sometimes I think they're given the background, they're told what to look for, and they have to see if they can see it," Brodsky told the inquiry.

"Sometimes they see it."

Hair evidence, examined by an RCMP lab, helped put Driskell in prison for the 1990 murder of Perry Harder, which Driskell always maintained he did not commit.

The first-degree murder conviction was quashed by the federal justice minister in 2005.

Brodsky saidlabs need to be more independent if they want to discover the truth.

"I think they should be independent,I think, like the chief medical officers. I think it should be run and operated by an independent, non-profit agency," he testified.

Crown hid information: Brodsky

When thejustice minister overturned Driskell's conviction, he cited several reasons for the decision, including new DNA evidence that showed hairs found in Driskell's van did not belong to the victim as the Crown argued at thetrial as well as problems with key witnesses and a lack of disclosure of information that could have helped Driskell's defence.

On Tuesday, Brodsky told the inquiry he had a hunch that information that would have helped Driskell's case was being kept away from him.

"[We] would have made a motion for fresh evidence if we had to. But we certainly wouldn't have let it go," Brodsky testified. "And in my opinion, then and now, I would have secured the acquittal of Mr. Driskell."

Brodsky said he made repeated requests to Crown prosecutors for the information, and was repeatedly told he had everything he needed.

Brodsky also told the inquiry that the Crown's star witness, Ray Zanidean, perjured himself on the witness stand and nobody did anything about it.

One recurring theme in the inquiry, which began July 17, has been miscommunication between the RCMP and the Winnipeg Police in relation to the treatment of Zanidean, who was an important and controversial witness at Driskell's trial.

The inquiry had earlier heard that Zanidean demanded and received tens of thousands of dollars and other perks in exchange for his testimony, while threatening to change his story or recant altogether.

Driskell's lawyers, including Brodsky, and the jury at his trial were not made aware of the deals, the inquiry was told.

After Driskell's conviction was quashed, the Manitoba government stayed the charges against him, a move thatkeeps him out of prison but does not officially exonerate him.

The inquiry is probing the role of police, the actions of the Crown and questions of disclosure in the case.

The commissioner has also been asked to determine when someone has met the threshold to be declared factually innocent or wrongly convicted.

The inquiry is expected to run another two weeks.