About The Case

Randy is an African Nova Scotian man who was convicted of second degree murder in a Halifax court room in April, 2018. At Randy’s trial in 2019, a man confessed to the crime and testified that he alone committed the offense – along with that, he testified to where he ran to afterwards to hide the weapon which was found by police K9 unit the following day. Every piece of independent evidence in this case corroborates his testimony. Here are six important factors in this case that show prosecutorial misconduct, and an overwhelming amount of evidence proves Randy’s innocence beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. An eye-witness to the crime was produced by the crown to testify at the trial of the man who confessed, stating that they saw only one person fleeing the scene. They also gave a description of the clothing worn by the assailant (white pants) which were also admitted as evidence. This same witness was hidden by the crown when it came time for Randy’s trial so the jury would not hear his testimony, excluding Randy from the scene. This assisted them in gaining a conviction.
2. A K9 expert testified at Randy’s trial and stated that he was on the scene in less than four minutes after the offense took place, he stated that he and his dog are both trained to know if there is more than one person on a trail, and he concluded there was only one person on that trail.
3. Latex gloves found on the scene (said to be worn by Randy) were tested for his DNA and was one hundred percent excluded. The DNA of an unidentified male was found, but the gloves were still used at his trial against him and portrayed by the crown to be worn by him.
4. The media sat in during the trial and published all aspects of the case except for the defence cross-examination, which helped the crown paint a guilty picture of Randy as opposed to the overwhelming evidence proving his innocence.
5. In closing arguments the Crown stated to an all white jury: “this is a white man who is dead here”, obviously inferring to convict him based on race. It has also been alleged by an outside source, intimately involved with one of the prosecutors at the time, that when asked if they (the Crown) believed Randy was innocent, the response was “we thought he was going to get off, but oh well.”
6. In the case against Randy you have one bullet, one trail, an eye witness sees one person fleeing the scene, one gun, one confession. On top of that you also have a man who has recanted his prior testimony, saying that he was pressured by the police to incriminate Randy, and was paid for doing so.

As Randy pursues his innocence from behind bars, it is up to us, the general public to question this case and raise awareness, especially of the misconduct by the crown that put an innocent man in prison for all this time. Even after the Supreme Court of Canada made a unanimous decision in less than ten minutes, granting Randy a new trial, he still faces injustice. December of 2020 he applied for bail only to be stone-walled by the crown once again, countering his application with an argument to remove his lawyer (unheard of in the history of Nova Scotia courts).

Where are our community leaders and politicians who represent the people when it comes to those wrongfully convicted. It is up to us the represent for randy and create a public outcry on his behalf, bringing attention to the miscarriage of justice in the pursuit of vengence, as the powers that be continue to ignore and dismiss relevant facts that contradict their position.

Cases like this are prevalent in this region, such as Rv. Marshall/RvAssoun, aside from these types of cases, Nova Scotia seems to have a high rate of overturned convictions due to ignorance in law. If these errors continue to go unchecked, the irrefutable harm perpetrated against the administration of justice will destroy society’s trust in the inherent right of a fair and just system. The individuals trusted with the highest power in the justice system (the public prosecution) must act only  on fact, not emotion, or a perceived responsibility to provide closure to the victims and/or their families by ignoring real evidence or lack thereof.

Making assumptions and/or overcharging to apply pressure to individuals who may or may not be involved in crime, in the hopes of gaining evidence to obtain a conviction, is a miscarriage of justice in itself – and that is the status quo in this region; this has to stop. These individuals pursuing vengeance by manipulating the system need to be held accountable to the people they represent.

---

We include the statement Randy read at his sentencing asserting his innocence:

Before I get into what I want to say, I want to express the fact that no matter how I feel about the outcome of this verdict, that the most important thing here is the fact that your family lost more. No matter how I feel about the outcome of this trial, no matter how, even as my lawyer goes through the process of appeal, you’ve lost a loved one, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that. And I believe that’s the most important thing here. 

From the beginning of this case in 2013 when I was arrested, I believe that the crown was not set out seeking justice on your behalf, but was set out to win, by all means necessary, that’s how I see it. 

I’m deeply sorry for your loss, but I want you to try, if you can, to objectively think about what took place in this trial, and ask yourself some serious questions.

Now, you probably [recall] that at the previous trial of Mr. Johnson, where there was an eyewitness that was called to testify, in which the eyewitness testified that he’d seen somebody running and that he had white pants that was presented as evidence, and was not worn by me.

There was a dog, a canine unit, on on the scene within minutes of the offence. And the dog trail, and the dog expert testified at my trial to the fact that there was one trail. And the dog, and the man himself, are qualified to determine if there’s more than one trail. And he testified that there was not more than one trail. And so my question to the court is, where did I go? If I committed this offence, what happened to me? I definitely didn’t vanish.

If I was involved with it, I’m pretty sure there would have been another trail, or an eyewitness would’ve said they’d seen two people, instead of just one.

And I want the family of the victim to know that this miscarriage of justice I believe it’s not a burden I put on them, but on the court, because I don’t believe that I was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not only that, I don’t believe that the verdict supports the evidence that was presented against me. It seems to me that — though I believe, and I think everyone in this court believes — that no one wanted this case to be about race, but inevitably, race is what it has become. And when things come about race, a lot of time they tend to be ignored. And the elephant in the room is race.

And to those who it should matters most to, it seems to be nothing more than just a shadow on the wall. Because we’re here. And the process is the process. I agree with that. But the particulars of the case.. [several seconds are unintelligible due to noise in the courtroom] Martin Luther King’s name was mentioned [in one of the victim impact statements] for reasons that to me are obvious. He himself was quoted as saying justice delayed is justice denied. In this case to me it is both a delay and a denial of justice. [unintelligible due to softness of speaker’s voice, but he is addressing the judge]

And to the family, I had no involvement and I’m not responsible for this man’s death. And from this day forward, I will continue to pursue my innocence. And that’s all I have to say.

---

FEATURED ARTICLES