James Driskell

Case Summary

James Driskell was wrongfully convicted in 1991 by a jury of the first degree murder of his friend, Perry Harder.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. Before Driskell’s arrest, he and Harder ran a “chop-shop” where they broke apart stolen vehicles and sold the parts, for which they were charged with criminal offences.1 Harder accepted a plea deal but failed to show up on the day he was scheduled to plead guilty.2 The police later found Harder’s body near train tracks, shot twice in the chest.3 Driskell became a prime suspect; the police believed he had a strong motive to prevent Harder from testifying against him on the “chop-shop” charges.4

James Driskell was born in 1958 in Ontario but lived in Manitoba for most of his life.5 His life had not been easy; his father was murdered at the age of 44, and he had lived a difficult life “in Winnipeg’s notorious north end.”6 In 1989, Driskell and his friend, Perry Harder, were charged with criminal offences for cutting apart stolen vehicles and selling the parts at their “chop-shop.”

On June 21, 1990, the day Harder was scheduled to plead guilty to his charges, he failed to show up in court. Three months later, Harder was found dead, shot twice in the chest.7 The police suspected Driskell for Harder’s murder. With Harder gone, no one would be able to testify against Driskell for his “chop-shop” charges.8

Determined to prove their theory about Driskell’s motive for murder, the police and the Crown built a case against Driskell based largely on the testimony by two witnesses: Reath Zanidean and John Gumieny.9 Both had extensive criminal records. The pair’s testimony at Driskell’s trial, alleging that Driskell told them that he wanted to kill Harder, seemed to support the Crown’s theory about Driskell’s strong motive to kill Harder.10 The witnesses further suggested that Driskell had planned to abduct Harder in his van to take him to “a place of execution.”11 The police search of Driskell’s van led to the discovery of several hairs, three of which supposedly matched the hair samples taken from Harder.12 The RCMP hair and fibre expert testified in court that the microscopic similarities between the hairs found in Driskell’s van and those taken from Harder made it highly likely that the hairs found in the van belonged to Harder.13 On June 14, 1991, the jury convicted Driskell of first degree murder.

After his subsequent appeals were denied, Driskell reached out to AIDWYC (now Innocence Canada), who successfully convinced Manitoba Justice to perform DNA testing on the hairs found in Driskell’s van, since that more reliable technology was now available.14 As it turned out, none of the hairs matched Harder’s. With this shocking discovery, AIDWYC fought to gain access to Driskell’s files, only to be faced with more disturbing revelations.15

The Crown’s key witnesses – Zanidean and Gumieny – were financially compensated in exchange for their testimony. Zanidean received $83,000 and immunity from his arson charge in Saskatchewan as an incentive to testify against Driskell.16 None of this information was disclosed to Driskell’s lawyer “at any point before, during or after [the] trial.”17

In 2003, Driskell and AIDWYC filed an application to the Minister of Justice, asking for a ministerial review of his conviction. While the application was on review, Driskell applied to be released on bail.18 On Nov. 28, 2003, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench accepted his request.19 More than 13 years after his arrest, Driskell was free.  On March 3, 2005, the Minister of Justice quashed Driskell’s conviction and ordered a new trial. On the same day, shortly after the Minister’s order, the Crown decided to stay Driskell’s case.20

In 2006, at a public inquiry of Driskell’s case, George Dangerfield, the prosecutor in charge of Driskell’s case at the time, apologized.21 After the release of the Driskell inquiry report which detailed problems with hair evidence, lack of disclosure, unsavoury witnesses, tunnel vision and the Crown’s use of a stay which left the possibility of a new trial over Driskell’s head, the Manitoba Attorney General also offered Driskell a personal apology.22 In 2008, Driskell received four million dollars in compensation for the 13 years he spent in prison for his wrongful conviction.23


[1] Sarah Harland-Logan, “James Driskell” (last visited 11 June 2020), online: Innocence Canada <innocencecanada.com> [perma.cc/exonerations/james-driskell/] [Innocence Canada].
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid; R v Driskell, 2004 MBQB 3 [Driskell].
[5] Driskell v Manitoba (Attorney General), [1999] MJ No 352, [1999] 11 WWR 615 at paras 10 - 12 (ManQB).
[6] Innocence Canada, supra note 1.
[7] Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of the Trial and Conviction of James Driskell, by Patrick J Lesage (Manitoba: Justice Department) at 8 [Driskell Inquiry].
[8] Innocence Canada, supra note 1.
[9] Ibid; Driskell Inquiry, supra note 9 at 4.
[10] Driskell, supra note 5 at para 22.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Driskell, supra note 5 at para 23.
[13] Ibid; Driskell Inquiry, supra note 9 at 59.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Innocence Canada, supra note 1; Driskell Inquiry, supra note 9 at 98 – 103.
[17] Innocence Canada, supra note 1; Driskell Inquiry, supra note 9.
[18] Innocence Canada, supra note 1.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Driskell Inquiry, supra note 9 at 124 – 25.
[21] “Prosecutor Says He’s Sorry Driskell Went to Jail: Inquiry”, CBC News (15 August 2006), online: <cbc.ca> [perma.cc/news/canada/manitoba/prosecutor-says-he-s-sorry-driskell-went-to-jail-inquiry-1.624220].
[22] Joe Friesen, “Driskell Ready to Move On”, The Globe and Mail (15 February 2007), online <theglobeandmail.com> [perma.cc/news/national/driskell-ready-to-move-on/article20393095/].
[23] Innocence Canada, supra note 1.

Case Details

  • Full name:

    James Driskell

  • Gender identity:

    Male

  • Race/ethnicity:

    White (caucasian)

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    33

  • Charges - specific offences:

    First degree murder

  • Date of conviction:

    1991-06-14

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    2005-03-03

  • Sentence - total time served:

    13 years, 01 month, 07 days

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    696/690 and new trial

  • Status of alleged crime:

    Unsolved

  • Compensation Received?

    Yes

  • Guilty plea?

    No

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    Convicted based on faulty forensic hair microscopy evidence purportedly linking him to the victim's death. Additionally, police and prosecutors failed to disclose that two witnesses who testified against him did so in exchange for financial benefits and immunity from prosecution.