It is only skewed if you do not know how the system works. Of course the prosecution wants to convict the person charged. What on earth do you think they are there to do? Do you honestly think that during questioning at trial they will stop to say "oh look I think we have got this wrong" seriously now.
Blomquist, I am a legal professional in Ontario (12 years) and I cut my teeth in criminal law, first w/Min. of Atty Gen, then w/ a prominent defense lawyer in Toronto and now I work in something less adversarial although I still negotiate all of the time in a sometimes adversarial manner (if the other party's lawyer is American, particularly!). It is the DUTY of the Crown to disclose inculpatory and exculpatory evidence when requested for disclosure by the defense. This requirement exists both for evidence the Crown intends to use and does not intend to use. However, it is the Crown's sole prerogative whether or not evidence may be refused disclosure as it may deem it privileged or irrelevant. This is where the Crown has gotten into trouble in the past (that led to several precedent rulings), but only when the defense has challenged it and the court reviews this evidence and finds the Crown did not act in the spirit of Stinchcombe, S7 of the Charter, and the LSUC (law society) may discipline the Crown.
If the Crown finds that evidence was either incorrect or even perjurious, it is required under both the rules and ethics of our law society, the courts, and Canadian precedent (see Stinchcombe and later rulings affirming Stinchcombe) to disclose this to the court. The same applies as well as withholding new developments that prove evidence/witnesses as either incorrect, exculpatory, or perjurious. It is also a breach of the accused's S7 Charter rights. Failure to do so can warrant acquittal, charges, overturning of conviction, and even disbarment from the professional body.
We do operate in an adversarial system which greatly favours the accused over other systems such as the Inquisitory System (used in France, etc), so the Crown does not have the duty to provide exculpatory evidence in its argument. Further, the defense is also held to the same standards as the Crown, so the suggestion that the defense is not subject to the same rules of ethics is very much untrue. There have been defense lawyers disbarred for this activity, and not many disbarred when acting for the Crown. This tells us that the Crown is under incredible scrutiny and does not have the same motive to act below the ethical standards imposed upon all barristers and solicitors in our province.
I felt compelled to clear this up as our court system is highly favoured to the accused, however the interrogation and police investigation is highly powered imbalanced to favour the police. This is why it is so important to remain silent as everything that is said is potentially damning evidence to be used by the Crown.
With that, I'm moving back to the case at hand so as not to veer O/T.
