During his trial, he knew he was innocent, but the prosecution was using his former friend’s testimony against him. Even though Nichol refused to say on the stand that she had seen David stab Gail, because she really did not see. That refusal led Crown prosecutor Bobs Caldwell to use a new section of the Canada Evidence Act pertaining to the use of prior inconsistent statements to cast doubt on a witness 's credibility (Injustice E Busters, 2006). But the prosecutor was still able to read her statement to the jury. If the jury believed that Nichol had seen this crime in action, then they would have found David guilty. Making David’s situation even worse, a damning story emerged at trial that, at a party back in May 1969, fellow attendees
…show more content…
on May 28, 1971, when he was walking with his friend, Sandy Seale, when they met two older men named James MacNeil and Roy Ebsary and asked them for a light for their cigarettes. Marshall and Seale did not know that Ebsary was drunk, violent, and had a history of violence (AIDWYC, 2014). So without a warning, Ebsary brought out a knife and critically stabbed Seale in the stomach and cut Marshall’s arm. However, if Marshall was not Mi’kmaq (American Indian), the whole story would have been different. He would have probably given his statement to the police immediately and he would of have been an excellent witness in the trial against Ebsary In addition, if Marshall had not been Mi’kmaq, he would not have spent the next ten years in prison for a murder he did not do. The Sergeant of Detectives who headed the first investigation into Seale’s death decided Marshall was the main suspect, even though a lack of evidence, because “…he shared what [the Commission believed] was a general sense in Sydney’s White community at the time that Indians were not ‘worth’ as much as Whites” (AIDWYC, 2014). At trial, the Court depended on the evidence of two teenage would-be eyewitnesses, Maynard Chant (who was on probation at the time) and John Pratico (whose psychiatrist later testified that he was prone to self-congratulatory delusions) (AIDWYC, 2014). Therefore, both witnesses gave two different statements to the police, whereas police were certain the boy’s version of the crime to their concept was that Marshall had stabbed Seale. It was largely because of Chant and Pratico’s perjured testimony, and because of the ineptitude of Marshall’s defense counsel, who failed to conduct any independent investigation or even ask the Crown for disclosure, that Marshall was convicted on June 4, 1971, of the murder of Sandy Seale (AIDWYC,
on May 28, 1971, when he was walking with his friend, Sandy Seale, when they met two older men named James MacNeil and Roy Ebsary and asked them for a light for their cigarettes. Marshall and Seale did not know that Ebsary was drunk, violent, and had a history of violence (AIDWYC, 2014). So without a warning, Ebsary brought out a knife and critically stabbed Seale in the stomach and cut Marshall’s arm. However, if Marshall was not Mi’kmaq (American Indian), the whole story would have been different. He would have probably given his statement to the police immediately and he would of have been an excellent witness in the trial against Ebsary In addition, if Marshall had not been Mi’kmaq, he would not have spent the next ten years in prison for a murder he did not do. The Sergeant of Detectives who headed the first investigation into Seale’s death decided Marshall was the main suspect, even though a lack of evidence, because “…he shared what [the Commission believed] was a general sense in Sydney’s White community at the time that Indians were not ‘worth’ as much as Whites” (AIDWYC, 2014). At trial, the Court depended on the evidence of two teenage would-be eyewitnesses, Maynard Chant (who was on probation at the time) and John Pratico (whose psychiatrist later testified that he was prone to self-congratulatory delusions) (AIDWYC, 2014). Therefore, both witnesses gave two different statements to the police, whereas police were certain the boy’s version of the crime to their concept was that Marshall had stabbed Seale. It was largely because of Chant and Pratico’s perjured testimony, and because of the ineptitude of Marshall’s defense counsel, who failed to conduct any independent investigation or even ask the Crown for disclosure, that Marshall was convicted on June 4, 1971, of the murder of Sandy Seale (AIDWYC,