Randy Druken

Case Summary

Randy Druken was born on May 21, 1965 in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.1 Druken had two sisters and five brothers, some of whom were known in the St. John’s area for their criminal activity involving drugs and violence.2 As a result, Druken was accustomed to alcohol and drug use.3

Druken and Brenda Young started dating in 1991, shortly after he finished serving a sentence for armed robbery.4 Their relationship was punctuated by many arguments, some of which became violent.5 Druken’s frequent relapses after his attempts to quit drinking and drug use would often give rise to more conflict between the two.6 

On the night of June 10, 1993, the couple engaged in an argument when Druken dropped by Young’s apartment after having consumed a significant amount of alcohol.7 Druken spent most of the next day sleeping at Young’s apartment to nurse his hangover.8 Shortly before 10:00 p.m. Young drove Druken back to his house and spent time with her friend until 12:30 a.m.9 She then purchased a chicken salad from a local fast food restaurant and headed home.10 On the morning of June 12, 1993, Young’s daughter, Cindy – who was only 9 years old at the time – found her mother lying half-naked in the living room, brutally murdered with multiple stab wounds to the body.11 Cindy put a blanket over her mother to keep her younger brother, Tyrone, from having to witness the tragic scene.12 She then called 911 and her great-grandmother.13

No physical evidence linked Randy Druken to the crime scene and the police interviews with Cindy and Young’s neighbours did not reveal much of a lead. Cindy overheard Young arguing with another man in the middle of the night, but she initially stated to the police that she was not sure if the man’s voice belonged to Randy Druken.14 Other neighbours’ statements to police could not place Randy Druken at the scene of the crime either. In fact, one neighbour, whose statements to police were later found to be consistent, stated that she had a brief interaction with a man who knocked on her door looking for Young in the early morning hours on the day she was murdered.15 She later identified this man to be Paul Druken, Randy’s brother. Nonetheless, the police zeroed in on Randy Druken at the outset of the investigation, arresting him and placing him in custody only two days after Young was found dead.16

Over the course of the investigation, the police exerted pressure on Young’s neighbours to stray from their original statements in ways that would implicate Randy Druken in Young’s murder.17 Some of the tactics included: repeatedly subjecting 9-year-old Cindy to suggestive interview techniques in the absence of an expert;18 re-interviewing a witness after telling her that her son was a suspect in the investigation;19 visiting one of Young’s neighbours’ residence on more than 30 occasions;20 and charging Randy Druken’s mother and stepfather with attempting to obstruct justice for backing up his alibi. This, in turn, intimidated other witnesses into telling police what they wanted to hear.21

After Randy Druken was charged with second degree murder, a jailhouse informant came forward. He alleged that while he and Randy were in custody awaiting trial, Randy had confessed to him that he killed Young.22 He further claimed that Randy, after killing Young, blacked out for some time and called his brother, Paul Druken, to help clean up the crime scene.23

Due to many inconsistencies found in different versions of the many witnesses’ statements – a result of questionable investigative tactics employed by police – the jailhouse informant’s testimony became the only direct evidence against Randy Druken at trial. The judge also allowed a statement against Druken to be read into the trial on the basis that the witness was, at the time of trial, unable to testify because of dementia. This was despite the fact that the witness had borderline intelligence and had not implicated Randy in her first statement to the police, doing so only after she learned her own son was a suspect.24 On March 18, 1995, Randy Druken was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years.25

On August 10, 1998, the Deputy Minister of Justice learned that the jailhouse informant had retracted his statement as falsely coerced by the police and the prosecution.26 At almost the same time, an independent investigation of Druken’s case by the Ontario Provincial Police was launched.27 Meanwhile, Druken appealed his conviction to the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal based on the jailhouse informant’s recantation of his testimony at trial.28 The prosecution consented to the admission of the fresh evidence, the quashing of the conviction and the ordering of a new trial.  On June 17, 1999, the court quashed Druken’s conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeal stated: “the fresh evidence has sufficient weight… that if accepted by the trier of fact, when considered with the other evidence in the case, it might have altered the result at trial.29 On July 8, 1999, Druken was released from custody after having served over 6 years in prison.30

The re-investigation of Randy Druken’s case uncovered numerous errors made in the original investigation, as well as new DNA evidence which incriminated Paul Druken – who had passed away due to a drug overdose by this time – in Young’s murder.31 The prosecution against Randy Druken ended on August 20, 2000, when the Crown entered a stay of proceedings.32  

In the inquiry into the case, Chief Justice Lamer criticized the Crown’s use of a stay of proceedings which left Randy Druken without an acquittal. Druken later received $2.1 million in compensation and an apology from the government of Newfoundland and Labrador for his wrongful conviction.33

 


 
[1] The Lamer Commission of Inquiry Pertaining to the Cases of: Ronald Dalton Gregory Parsons Randy Druken, by Antonio Lamer (Newfoundland and Labrador: Department of Justice and Public Safety) at 176 [Lamer Inquiry Report]; Stephanie Porter, “Does $2.1-Million Make Up for Lost Time?”, The Globe and Mail (15 December 2006), online: <theglobeandmail.com> [perma.cc/news/national/does-21-million-make-up-for-lost-time/article4113540/].
[2] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 175.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 176 – 77.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 177 – 78.
[8] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 177 – 79.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 181 – 83, 220.
[15] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 185 – 86.
[16] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 303.
[17] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 220 – 21.
[18] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 223 – 36.
[19] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 192 – 200.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 257 – 62.
[22] R v Druken, [1999] NJ No 183, 43 WCB (2d) 156 at para 2 [1999 R v Druken].
[23] Ibid.
[24] R. v. Druken, (R.J.), 1995 CanLII 10537 at para 33.
[25] 1999 R v Druken, supra note 22 at para 1.
[26] 1999 R v Druken, supra note 22 at para 3.
[27]1999 R v Druken, supra note 22 at paras 3 – 4.
[28] Ibid.
[29] 1999 R v Druken, supra note 22 at para 17.
[30] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 175.
[31] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 175, 304 – 06.
[32] Lamer Inquiry Report, supra note 1 at 175.
[33] Stephanie Porter, “Does $2.1-Million Make Up for Lost Time?”, The Globe and Mail (15 December 2006), online: <theglobeandmail.com> [perma.cc/news/national/does-21-million-make-up-for-lost-time/article4113540/].