Tunnel Vision Case

Words: 569
Pages: 3

Tunnel Vision first came into the spotlight during the Public Inquiry of the Worngful convicton of Guy Pual Morin. The inquiry conluded that tunnel vision had effected both the investigators and the Crown. The term tunnel Vision was defined by Commissioner Kaufaman as “the single - minded and overly narrow focus on a particular investgative or prosecutorial thoeryso as to unreasonably colour the evaluation of information recived and one’s conduct in response to that information.” (McEwen 2014 p 240 ) During the Inquiry into the Wrongful Conviction of Thomas Sophonow former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Peter Coy underlined the negative impact of tunnel vision. Saying that tunnel Vision can affect an officer or anyone involved in the managment of justice which can have at times tragic results (McEwen 2014 p 240. …show more content…
Judge Bouck formed a dislike for Henery early in the trial which impacted his conduct of the trial and his jury charge. Leading questions are usualy prohibited during direct examanitions but are allowed in the cross examintion. The crown used leading questions to obtain respones form Detective Sims regarding the Lineup Identifiction in which the woman could not get a good look at Henry’s face. During Hnery’s cross-examination of Miss Simsion the crown was not allowed to object to object to the cross examination directed at testing the relibality of the witness identification evidence. (McEwen 2014) Ivan Henery’s Trial Judge Bouck had personal views about henery during the trial. By Nature Judges do form emotional oppinions about the people appreaing before them but are requried to be fair and impartial. A judges appreance and behavior must not show to the the jury that he belives that the defendent is guilt (McEwen 2014) During the Trial of Ivan Henery tuennl vision played a key role in determining wether or not Hnery was guilty or