Case Summary
On June 26, 1993, William Mullins-Johnson was babysitting his brother Paul’s three children. At the time, he was twenty-two years old and living with Paul’s family at their home in Sault Ste. Marie. He frequently babysat the kids, who “loved staying with Billy”, according to his sister-in-law, Kim.1 That day, William’s four-year-old niece, Valin, had been running a fever. He checked on her half an hour after she went to bed and found her sleeping.2
William was awoken the next morning by Kim crying and screaming. Kim had gone to check on Valin and found her dead with vomit on her bed. When CPR did not revive Valin, her remains were taken to the Sault Ste. Marie General Hospital where a pathologist, Dr. Rasaiah, performed her autopsy. Prior to the dissection, he telephoned Charles Smith, at that time a much-celebrated pathologist at Toronto’s famous SickKids Hospital. Dr. Rasaiah relayed his initial observations to Smith, who opined that Valin had been sexually abused. Dr. Rasaiah also consulted with his colleague Dr. Zehr, an OB/GYN who specialised in child abuse cases. Dr. Zehr stated that Valin’s case was among the worst instances of child sexual abuse that she had encountered.3 Dr. Rasaiah concluded that Valin’s cause of death was asphyxiation due to “external compression” of her airways, meaning that she had been suffocated, and that Valin had been sexually abused repeatedly in the past.4
William was arrested for the first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault of his niece on June 27, 1993, less than twelve hours after Valin’s body had been found.5 William, who is Indigenous and had a prior conviction for robbery, would later speculate that had he been white, the police investigation would have been longer: “An Indian guy with a prior. What’s more juicy than that?”6
William’s trial began on September 6, 1994 and lasted a little over two weeks.7 The jury heard testimony from several expert witnesses—including Charles Smith—that Valin had been sexually abused and suffocated to death, as indicated by dilation and damage observed in her genital area, as well as bruising to her head, neck, and chest. In addition, Smith alone gave evidence to support the Crown’s theory that William had killed his niece while sexually assaulting her (in this case a necessary element for a first degree murder conviction). He testified that he had found microscopic “evidence of recent sexual abuse” around the time of Valin’s death.8
On September 21, 1994, after deliberating for six hours, the jury found William guilty of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years.9 While incarcerated, William received death threats from other inmates, whom he feared might slash his throat. At one point, he spent four months in solitary confinement for his protection.10
William appealed his conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On December 19, 1996, a two-to-one majority of the court dismissed his appeal.11 The majority stated that (as per the 1987 Supreme Court judgment R v Yebes) the court of appeal’s role was limited when reviewing evidence on which a jury reached its verdict: it should give appropriate deference to the jurors, “who actually saw and heard the witnesses”.12 The majority recognized that the evidence against William was “not overwhelming,” but declined to interfere with the jury’s guilty verdict, finding that this verdict was not unreasonable.13 In addition, the majority found that the fairness of William’s trial had not been compromised when the judge failed to instruct the jury not to infer guilt from his psychiatric history.14
Justice Stephen Borins, in dissent, would have given William a new trial. Justice Borins identified a number of deficiencies in William’s trial, including inadequate jury instructions pertaining to his defence.15 Notably, Justice Borins observed that Smith was the only expert witness to testified as to evidence of a recent sexual assault.16 He presciently stated that, in his view, “the evidence of whether . . . [William], or anybody, had sexually assaulted the deceased, or had attempted to do so, was weak.”17
Because one of the Ontario Court of Appeal judges dissented, Willam had an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (that is, the Supreme Court was required to hear his appeal if he brought one).18 William therefore appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed in a mere one-paragraph judgment on May 26, 1998. Justice L’Heureux-Dubé stated, for the court, that the judges were “all of the view that this appeal be dismissed for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal.”19
Having exhausted his appeal options, William sought help from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC, now known as Innocence Canada). In February 2003, defence counsel James Lockyer requested that the Crown release the microscopic slides and related materials obtained from Valin’s autopsy to forensic pathologist Dr. Knight, who would review William’s case. Over the following year and a half, Smith: did not provide these materials; failed to respond to repeated requests for them; and lied to the Crown, police, and other doctors as to where they had gone. (At one point Smith claimed to have personally mailed them to Dr. Rasaiah.) Finally, the slides were retrieved from Smith’s office with the assistance of Dr. McLellan, the Chief Coroner for Ontario.20
Dr. McLellan asked senior pathologist Dr. Pollanen to catalogue the slides, during which the latter realized that Smith and other experts had gravely misinterpreted their contents. Dr. Pollanen discovered that the tissue preserved from Valin’s autopsy in the slides was normal and did not suggest that any kind of assault had occurred. The tissue damage and dilation observed in Valin’s genital region, and bruising to her upper body, were “no more than the result of normal processes following death or were caused by procedures connected to the post-mortem investigation.”21 In other words, Smith had mistaken body changes that occur naturally after death, as well as the changes caused by the autopsy itself, for indicia of an especially horrific violent crime.22
Dr. McLellan sent the slides to Dr. Knight in July 2005. Dr. Knight likewise determined that the slides did not support Smith’s findings of sexual assault. On September 7, 2005, William applied to the federal Minister of Justice to review his case and determine if a miscarriage of justice had occurred (in accordance with Section 696 of the Criminal Code). He was granted bail on September 21, 2005: 11 years, to the day, since his conviction.23
In light of the disturbing developments in Valin’s case—and other concerns about Smith’s work that had accumulated while William served his sentence—Dr. McLellan announced on June 7, 2005 that a formal review would be conducted into all forensic pathology cases from 1991 to 2002 where Smith performed the autopsy or acted as a consultant.24 The results of the Chief Coroner’s Review were released in April 2007. In 20 of the 45 cases surveyed, including Valin’s, the reviewing experts took issue with Smith’s interpretation of the evidence in his written report, testimony, or both.25
On July 6, 2007, the federal Minister of Justice granted William’s application and sent the case back to the Ontario Court of Appeal for rehearing. The court heard fresh evidence from six forensic pathology experts, who unanimously concluded that William was innocent. While her specific cause of death could not be ascertained, there was nothing to suggest that Valin’s death was unnatural.26
On October 15, 2007, with the Crown’s agreement, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed William’s conviction and acquitted him of a crime that had never happened.27 The Court stated in its ruling that William’s “conviction was the result of a rush to judgment based on flawed scientific opinion. . . . The fresh evidence is compelling in demonstrating that no crime was committed against Valin Johnson and that . . . [William] did not commit any crime.”28
The Court of Appeal observed that “it is profoundly regrettable that as a result of what has been shown to be flawed pathological evidence [Wiliam] . . . was wrongly convicted and has spent such a very long time in jail.”29
One year later, the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, led by Justice Stephen Goudge, released a report setting out a staggering list of serious problems with Smith’s methodology and impartiality.30 Justice Goudge noted that Smith’s background in forensic pathology was “woefully inadequate,” since he had only been trained as a pediatric pathologist.31 Moreover, Smith “did not always ensure that he had all the relevant medical information before he conducted an autopsy,” and he was “sloppy and inconsistent in documenting the information” that he did have.32 In addition, Smith failed in his role as an expert witness by presenting his opinion in a “dogmatic and certain manner when the evidence was far from certain.”33 Justice Goudge found that Smith often “provided unbalanced or emotive testimony, which tended to invite inappropriate and adverse conclusions.”34 The report reiterated that Smith’s misinterpretation of Valin’s autopsy results derived from his lack of understanding of normal post-mortem processes that caused the tissue changes he had ascribed to a violent death.35
On October 20, 2010, Attorney General of Ontario Chris Bentley announced that William would be awarded $4.25 million in compensation for his wrongful conviction. Bentley apologized to William and his family on behalf of the Ontario government “for the miscarriage of justice that occurred and the pain they had to endure.”36
Smith was stripped of his medical licence at a 2011 disciplinary hearing for disgraceful conduct.37