One thing that contributed to the wrongful conviction of Baltovich was the over-reliance on key eyewitnesses. About 20% of the time witness are picking people in a lineup that are innocent (When Eyes Deceive, 2009). The eye witness evidence should have not been used in this case because the eyewitnesses were all unsure of what they saw. The witness that claimed he saw Baltovich driving Bain’s car described someone that looked nothing like Baltovich. Furthermore, the two witnesses that claimed they say Baltovich and Bain’s at a picnic table were discredited because Baltovich was with his family the whole time, but still these two witnesses were included in the trial. The National Post (2015) article notes that the witness answer during a lineup should be yes or …show more content…
In both the Baltovich and Cotton case all the witnesses were unsure about who the guilty person was. Jennifer was stuck between two males and the witnesses in the Baltovich case state they did not get a good look at the guilty person but yet Cotton and Baltovich were picked just because of a hunch feeling.
This case is similar to Cotton’s because the eyewitnesses were used as the main piece of evidence that put a man behind bars. Rather than having substantial or even scientific evidence a few witnesses mistakenly put these individuals behind bars. Another factor that contributed to the wrongful conviction was that the judge was only concerned about the Crowns evidence and ignored Baltovich case. Just like MacDonald’s case the judge did not inform the jury that they should caution an eyewitness testimony. The judge was rather biased and did not use a lot of discretion in this case. The defence argued that the judge was unfair, unbalance and there were significant errors of law, in turn, the jury was