logo
Review of Sobotiak murder conviction revealed undisclosed police evidence, court filing says

Review of Sobotiak murder conviction revealed undisclosed police evidence, court filing says

Yahoo24-05-2025

The murder conviction stemming from the 1987 disappearance of an Edmonton woman has been thrown out, in part because there was undisclosed evidence from the police investigation.
Roy Sobotiak's lawyers filed written arguments in support of his bail application on Friday, which shed light on issues they raised with the investigation and trial that ended in 1991, convicting Sobotiak of second-degree murder in the death of Susan Kaminsky.
Namely, they outline issues around undisclosed evidence, an undercover "Mr. Big" police operation in the late 1980s and additional forensic evidence linked to the case — some of which was discovered after Sobotiak's conviction.
"In 1991, the case against Mr. Sobotiak was seemingly very strong. He was with Ms. Kaminsky the night before her disappearance and it was believed that she never left his mother's house alive because of his confessions to [the undercover officer] and his further confession on arrest," the brief says.
"Today, the factual landscape has fundamentally changed. There is a reasonable likelihood that the murder charge will be stayed on account of non-disclosure and/or due to the manner in which the Mr. Big operation was conducted."
Kaminsky, a 34-year-old mother, vanished in February 1987 and her body was never found.
Sobotiak, who was in his early 20s at the time, was the last known person to see her alive. He had told police that Kaminsky drove him home from his mother's house, where the two had spent time together after running into each other at a bar after midnight.
The federal justice minister ordered a new trial for Sobotiak this year, nearly 36 years after Sobotiak was arrested and imprisoned.
Court of King's Bench Justice Eric Macklin granted Sobotiak's release Friday. He is under a curfew and other court-ordered conditions.
James Lockyer, a founding director of Innocence Canada and one of Sobotiak's lawyers, called him "the longest-serving wrongly convicted man in Canadian history."
He noted the only other comparable case is Romeo Phillion, who spent nearly 32 years in prison before his murder conviction was quashed in 2003. A new trial was also ordered in that case, but Crown prosecutors in Ontario withdrew the murder charge against him in 2010.
Sobotiak, now 61, applied for the justice minister to review his conviction, Lockyer told the court.
A subsequent investigation by federal officials unearthed undisclosed evidence from police files, including evidence of other possible suspects in Kaminsky's disappearance, according to a written memorandum from Sobotiak's legal team.
"Its impact on the outcome of the applicant's trial and the fairness of his trial had to be assessed," the brief says.
The document, filed in the Court of King's Bench earlier this month, says the lawyers can't disclose specifics from the investigative report due to a confidentiality agreement.
Sobotiak's lawyers argued the Mr. Big operation that was used to elicit Sobotiak's original confession was abusive, and can't stand up to legal scrutiny.
In a Mr. Big sting, undercover police officers draw a suspect into a fictitious criminal organization. A Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2014 set new standards for how this evidence can be used, with stricter rules about the legal admissibility of confessions made during these kinds of investigations.
In this case, the written arguments say, the operation came with implicit threats of violence and induced Sobotiak to confess by portraying membership in the fake criminal group as a path to emotional and financial security.
"The officers preyed on his vulnerabilities: his poverty, his mental health problems and his addictions," the brief says.
"It is surprising that Mr. Sobotiak held out as long as he did."
Sobotiak consistently denied any involvement in Kaminsky's disappearance over nearly 11 months of the Mr. Big sting — which started after police investigated Sobotiak through surveillance, wiretaps and a police informant who lived with him for several months.
Details of the investigation were revealed in court during the original trial.
Starting in October 1988, an undercover Edmonton Police Service detective befriended Sobotiak and took him along to staged drug deals and fake scouting trips to search for places to hide a dead body. The detective also bought Sobotiak food and alcohol, and paid him for being a "lookout" during drug transactions.
By September 1989, police decided to try getting Sobotiak drunk "to see if it would cause him to 'say something.'"
The undercover officer then pushed for details about Kaminsky's death in a hotel room, while Sobotiak drank an entire 26-ounce bottle of vodka.
WATCH | Edmonton man gets bail with murder conviction overturned after 36 years in prison:
In the videotaped meeting, Sobotiak becomes visibly intoxicated. The officer continued to press him with statements including, "'Our circle' knew he had killed Kaminsky and he needed to be honest if he wanted to be in their organization."
Sobotiak then "adopted" the officer's suggestion that Kaminsky died by accident, the lawyers' brief says. He said she fell and broke her neck while he was trying to carry her down the stairs at his mother's house.
The undercover detective prompted Sobotiak for details of Kaminsky's death in three more meetings over the following week. Sobotiak told a variety of stories, first repeating the death was an accident but adding that he'd transported her body from his mother's home in a duffel bag, dismembered it in his apartment, and disposed of it in two dumpsters. Then, he said he'd strangled her after a sexual encounter.
The fourth and final time, after the officer told Sobotiak about "the importance of his confession as a means of entry into their criminal organization," he repeated the story, claiming he "just went berserk."
Sobotiak was arrested the next day. The man he had been spending time with was officially revealed to him as a police officer.
There's limited evidence about what was disclosed during Sobotiak's original trial, since the Crown and former defence lawyer's files have been destroyed, according to the brief filed in court.
But the brief alleges "substantial" non-disclosure of evidence, saying the "most striking" examples are statements Sobotiak's mother and sister gave to police that suggested Kaminsky was alive when she left the home, before she disappeared.
Another witness told police she saw a woman who resembled Kaminsky walking with a man, who wasn't Sobotiak, later on the day she disappeared — after the time police contended Sobotiak killed her.
A young neighbour also told police about possible sightings of Kaminsky and her car on that day, later than the time Sobotiak told the undercover police officer he killed her.
"Their statements would have undermined the veracity of Mr. Sobotiak's Mr. Big confessions and his further confession on arrest," the brief says.
During the original trial, the defence received a police investigation report that mentioned "several ex-boyfriends" of Kaminsky had allegedly been violent to her, including one who an RCMP officer suggested should be considered a suspect in her disappearance.
"No further information was provided about these partners of Ms. Kaminsky and what steps were taken to investigate them," the brief says.
It adds that DNA analysis done in 2023 also doesn't support claims Sobotiak made during his confession in the Mr. Big sting, about putting Kaminsky's body in a duffel bag he owned and dismembering her in his apartment.
The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service has yet to make a decision about whether they will put Sobotiak on trial a second time, nearly four decades after Kaminsky disappeared.
The province has applied for a judicial review of the decision to order a new trial.
There's no date yet when it might be heard in Federal Court, and Sobotiak's lawyers say it could take years to resolve.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein's retrial in New York begin
Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein's retrial in New York begin

CBS News

timean hour ago

  • CBS News

Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein's retrial in New York begin

Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial has reached its final stage. The jury began deliberations, but not without drama in the courtroom beforehand. is now in the hands of a jury in New York City. One of the jurors who had been listening to the trial for weeks got sick just as deliberations were set to begin. Juror 8 didn't show up Thursday morning, and was replaced by an alternate juror to begin deliberations. CBS News New York's Lisa Rozner reports Juror 8 was somebody Weinstein's defense wanted as part of the trial and therefore the deliberations, so much so that Weinstein's legal team initially threatened to move for a mistrial if the judge didn't give Juror 8 more time to potentially show up. Eventually, the judge dismissed that as a possibility, saying that even though the defense "chose" the juror, "the purpose of an alternate juror is for this very reason." The judge then began instructing the jurors on deliberations just before 11 a.m. Juror 8 was female, as is her replacement, Alternate Juror 1. Weinstein addresses court after jury starts deliberations Deliberations began at 11:30 a.m. After the jury left, Weinstein asked to address the court. "Your honor I'd like to thank your team, court officers, security, all the people who were just and fair with me and with the exception of the captain - I'm kidding," Weinstein said. "Just seriously, I've been treated incredibly fairly. The court officers, the court clerks, everybody I just want to thank from the bottom of my heart. I appreciate you all." The judge then thanked Weinstein for his comments. Closing arguments in Harvey Weinstein retrial The defense requested a mistrial Wednesday morning, claiming the Manhattan District Attorney's office forced some witnesses to testify, but the judge turned down the request. The jury was brought in around 10:30 a.m. to hear the rest of the prosecution's closing arguments. The defense spoke for nearly three hours Tuesday in its closing statements. The prosecution kept it serious, portraying Weinstein as a sexual predator, while the defense was animated, cracking jokes that incited laughter from the jury box and telling them Weinstein was the true victim. The 73-year-old's lawyer, Arthur Aidala, told the jury Tuesday, "I know this is going to sound crazy, but he's the one getting abused." He alleged the accusers used Weinstein for fame and fortune and that everything was consensual. The prosecution called those remarks offensive and said, "He had enormous power and control over the entertainment industry for over 30 years, he decided who was in and who was out," adding Weinstein "was not used to the word 'no.'" What is Weinstein accused of in this case? Two accusers -- former production assistant Miriam Haley and actress Jessica Mann -- testified during the retrial and at Weinstein's first trial in 2020. Haley alleged Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in July 2006, and Mann alleged he raped her at at New York hotel in 2023. Former model Kaja Sokola alleged Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006 when she was 19 years old. She was not part of the original trial. Weinstein is charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sex act and one count of third-degree rape. Both carry a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. He has pleaded not guilty. Weinstein's 2020 conviction was overturned last year when the state's highest court ruled the judge should not have allowed testimony from other accusers who were not part of the criminal charges. He was then held at Rikers Island for several months leading up to his retrial. Weinstein was also convicted in 2022 of sexual assault in Los Angeles and was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case

The US Supreme Court has sided with an Ohio woman who alleged she was discriminated against at her job because she was heterosexual. The justices voted unanimously in a ruling focused on evidence standards that could make it easier to file similar "reverse discrimination" cases. Marlean Ames said that despite working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years, she was denied a promotion and then demoted. She had appealed to the court to challenge the standards required to prove her case. The decision effectively lowers the burden of proof required for people who are members of a majority group - such as white or heterosexual people - to make discrimination claims. US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, had required that members of majority groups show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination. The court has now ruled that the standard of evidence for a discrimination claim should be the same, regardless of a person's identity. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, one of the court's liberals, wrote the official opinion, with concurring opinions from conservatives Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. The court concluded that anti-discrimination and equal protection laws were meant to apply to all Americans. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," she wrote. The court did not consider Ms Ames' original discrimination suit. The justices said it was up to lower courts that had initially ruled against her to evaluate the case under the clarified evidence standards. Legal experts say employment discrimination and bias cases can be difficult to demonstrate, regardless of the burden of proof. Ms Ames had said she had positive performance reviews, but a promotion she sought was given to a lesbian. She was then demoted and her job was given to a gay man. In a lawsuit, she argued her employer had a preference for LGBTQ staff members and denied her opportunities because she identifies as straight. Lower courts ruled that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of her claim, propelling the burden of proof question to the Supreme Court. At a February hearing, justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to her argument. US Supreme Court hears arguments in 'straight discrimination' case

US Supreme Court rejects Mexican govt suit against gun makers
US Supreme Court rejects Mexican govt suit against gun makers

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

US Supreme Court rejects Mexican govt suit against gun makers

The US Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a $10 billion lawsuit by the Mexican government accusing American gun manufacturers of fueling drug cartel violence. In a unanimous 9-0 opinion, the top court said a federal law -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) -- shields the gun makers from liability. "Mexico's lead claim -- that the manufacturers elect to sell guns to, among others, known rogue dealers -- fails to clear that bar," said Justice Elena Kagan, the author of the opinion. "Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers." Gun maker Smith & Wesson and gun distributor Interstate Arms had sought dismissal of the Mexican government's suit, which has been winding its way through US courts since 2021. Mexico, which is under mounting pressure from President Donald Trump to curb drug trafficking, had accused the firearms makers of "aiding and abetting" illegal gun sales because they allegedly know that some of their products were being unlawfully sold to the drug cartels. A federal judge tossed out the case in 2022 saying Mexico's claims failed to overcome the protection of the PLCAA, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields US gunmakers from liability for criminals misusing their products. An appeals court revived the case citing an exception to the law, and Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms sought relief from the Supreme Court. A majority of the justices on the conservative-dominated top US court appeared to side with the firearms companies during more than 90 minutes of oral arguments in March. Mexico maintains that 70-90 percent of the weapons recovered at crime scenes have been trafficked from the United States. The US southern neighbor tightly controls firearms sales, making them practically impossible to obtain legally. Even so, drug-related violence has seen more than 480,000 people killed in Mexico since the government deployed the army to combat trafficking in 2006, according to official figures. Catherine Stetson, representing the Mexican government before the Supreme Court, said 600,000 US guns are illegally trafficked into Mexico every year and some companies are even "designing certain guns to target the Mexican market," giving them Spanish names such as "El Jefe." The case comes against a backdrop of US-Mexico trade tensions with Trump threatening tariffs on imports from Mexico, citing a lack of progress in stemming the flow of drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. cl/md

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store