composite photo: A juror in the Harrigan murder trial was found to be a relative of a fmr accused (inset are L-R Baptiste, Edwards and Harrigan). Photo: VINO

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – It was a journey of incredible suspension and surprises at the High Court yesterday, October 17, 2012 as witnesses and evidence came and went but it would have never been anticipated that the jurors would be discharged for the second time this week.

Yan Edwards, Allen Baptiste and Rodney Simmonds Jr appeared before the court and must have surely harboured thoughts that the chances of proceeding in their trial were as brilliant as the morning’s sunshine. This, however, was not to be the case.

The duo of Yan Edwards and Simmonds Jr are faced with the joint charge of conspiracy to murder Melbourne Francis; a crime they allegedly committed on March 13, 2011 at Nottingham Estate. Meanwhile Edwards and Allen Baptiste are faced with the charge of murder in the death of Keri Harrigan; the men allegedly committed this act in the area of Long Look on March 16, 2011.

Prosecution appeals to jurors

The day’s proceedings began with Senior Crown Counsel Christlyn Benjamin taking the jurors through her opening address, providing an outline of how the prosecution intended to prove its case.

Benjamin told the panel of jurors, who incidentally had just been selected on the very same morning following the discharge of an earlier panel just two days prior due to a “jury issue” that arose, that they needed to listen “keenly” to testimony scheduled to be heard by the alleged co-conspirators of the accused, Vaughn Cameron and Henito Penn.

The prosecution remained convinced that there was a nexus between the charges surrounding the accused and the Moneygram robbery that occurred in January 2011 and sought to convey this to the panel of jurors. It was felt that the criminal acts resulted from the accused men’s belief that Harrigan and Francis were in possession of proceeds of the robbery.

Witnesses give testimony

When the prosecution called its first witness, Detective Constable Etienne, all eyes and ears were glued to the stand as he took the court through an incredible feat of total recall. Etienne, a crime scene investigator, described in detail his discovery at the scene of the Nottingham Estate Road, Long Look shooting.

He explained that he had found four 7.62x39 spent shells in addition to one live round of the same description. He also related the scene he witnessed, recounting that of the 7 main entries discovered in a bullet riddled white Mitsubishi car, there was a combination of twenty-six entry and exit points. The court listened keenly as he described his treatment of the scene and the subsequent evidence he discovered. Etienne further noted that he could identify the vehicle by the chassis number.

Defence counsel Stephen Daniels, appearing on behalf of Edwards, cross-examined the witness and asked about a classification of the measurement of the shells recovered and also whether he could distinguish between entry and exit points in the vehicle. Additionally, he also asked whether he could make a determination about the calibre of weapon used by looking at the entry and exit points. The witness indicated that even though he had training in the field he was not an expert in those matters and as such could not make that determination.

During the cross-examination Crown Counsel Valston Graham interjected to advise counsel that additional witnesses would be called at a later time and recommended Daniels ask them about these specifics.

The prosecution then called its second witness, Detective Gumbs, an expert in firearms. He began to relate his testimony but was stopped from doing so due to an objection raised by defence Counsel Patrick Thompson. The court then took a break for lunch and were scheduled to resume hearing testimony immediately afterwards.

Afternoon surprise

When the court resumed just after 2 P.M., there was a further twist to the engaging saga as Judge Albert Redhead began by apologising to the jurors for what he essentially described as a conflict of interest situation.

Judge Redhead explained to the jurors that he deeply regretted to inform them that just prior to the resumption of the sitting, he discovered that one of the jurors is related to Mikhael Howe, who was previously accused and subsequently acquitted of being involved in the MoneyGram armed robbery committed in 2011. He expressed that it was unfortunate that the juror did not reveal this information before. It was later suggested that the juror may not have known that the two cases were linked in any way.

“As I said this morning, if anyone of you really could not sit [as a juror], then please say,” judge Redhead said. The judge then added “justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done”.

Mr Graham then suggested “since this was the second attempt to hear this matter in this assizes...” it would be prudent to have the matter heard in the February assizes instead.

Judge Redhead, noting that the decision was his and he was not influenced in any way, then declared that the case would be traversed to the February assizes and announced that the accused were to be remanded until such time.