Court rejects ‘fresh evidence’ appeal by man convicted in grisly Warkworth murder
Ontario’s top court has rejected a convicted killer’s appeal, finding his application to introduce fresh evidence in support of his case “is not in the interests of justice.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruling means Marc Vickers, convicted of first-degree murder in the 2008 killing of Michelle Barnoski in Warkworth, will not be granted the new trial he sought.
Vickers was convicted after a jury trial in 2010 and is currently serving a sentence of life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years.
Vickers, 36 at the time of his trial, was one of two people convicted of killing Barnoski, who was shot multiple times and beaten, then buried in a shallow grave in the yard at Vickers’ house.
The woman’s son, who was 14 at the time of the killing, was found guilty in a separate trial. During that trial, the boy identified Vickers as the shooter.
Vickers did not testify at his own trial, which was heard by a jury in Oshawa. But jurors did see and hear hours of taped police interviews during which Vickers claimed the boy had committed the killing. Vickers admitted to helping bury Barnoski, clean up the house and dispose of the murder weapon.
Jurors convicted Vickers of first-degree murder in November 2010, apparently accepting prosecutors’ submissions that he had helped plan and commit the murder, then took steps to cover up the crime.
On appeal lawyers for Vickers sought a new trial, arguing fresh evidence — a statement provided by the youth four years after Vickers was convicted — supports Vickers’s claim that he was not involved in the killing.
Speaking from prison to lawyers representing Vickers, the youth claimed that he alone had fired the fatal shots.
According to the statement, “(Vickers) assisted only after the fact — to clean up the residence, dispose of the body and attempt to distance them from any involvement in (the) death,” according to the ruling.
Ultimately, however, the youth refused to sign an affidavit based on his statement.
The Appeal Court ruled against admitting the fresh evidence, finding the application failed on a number of grounds, including the reliability of the youth’s statement.
The court noted that the young man has over time provided multiple — and conflicting — versions of what happened on the night of the murder. The court ruled it is not “in the interests of justice” to admit the fresh evidence.