Judge to jury: Case stands or falls on Hypolite’s evidence

In her summation to the jury in the Dhanraj Singh murder trial, Justice Paula Mae Weekes yesterday said that in order for the jurors  to arrive at a verdict they must go though a clinical process of the evidence. She explained that her job is to instruct them on the law and how it relates to the facts of this case, and also to review some of the evidence. She said that she would also express some view but they were free to reject it or accept it since they are the sole judges of the facts. She told them to arrive at a verdict they must find the facts of the case and by combining it with the law find a verdict. The law, she said, they must take from her and how it impacts on the trial.

“You are the sole judges and qualified for facts finding by using you common sense, intelligence, experience and good working knowledge of the affairs of T&T. She explained that evidence was everything said by witnesses and items admitted in evidence. However, she warned, that not everything will be the truth - explaining  that two  witnesses may tell  different stories abut a certain issue and they will have to decide which to accept or reject, or reject both. “But one thing you cannot do is allow sympathy to affect you”, she said.

“When you are carrying out jury function no sympathy, no prejudice must influence that function”. Admitting, that people do have prejudices, Weekes told them that they must put it aside when deliberating. And further cautioned that this case does not allow for any  political affiliation they may have to influence them. She alerted them not to speculate or come to a conclusion not based on evidence. “You cannot fill in the blanks. You must find facts by either accepting or rejecting what a witness may have said”. But  noted that there is a parallel way in law that allows them to draw inferences. Commenting that in T&T everybody knows everything and the less information they have the more they know, she advised the jury to set aside what they may have heard outside and concentrate on what they have heard only in the Court.

She warned: “He who alleges must prove - The State alleges and the State must prove. Dhanraj Singh has nothing to prove. -  and there is a standard of proof...beyond reasonable doubt. It must satisfy you that you feel sure that the allegation has been made out.” To do so, she said they must recall the evidence of which they must be sure, clear and convincing, and at the end of the day, must decide it has reached the standard by law. She said the State’s case can stand or fall on the evidence of Elliot Hypolite and warned that they must “approach this witness with care , caution and rigorous scrutiny... expecting embellishment.” In law, she added, there is danger to convict relying on evidence of this nature, but if they are  sure it is the truth and reliable, they must act on it. “The use of such evidence is highly distasteful,” she accepted, but cautioned that it was not important to them how Hypolite came to give evidence, noting that it was a matter of policy and not relevant to them.

She told them that they must make all the effort to seek to find the facts and give it their fullest consideration from all angles. “You can take them or leave them.” She highlighted the testimonies of some of the important witnesses, especially Hypolite, and Dhanraj. At the conclusion of her four hour summation she suggested some five questions the jury could ask themselves and deliberate on to come to a conclusion. 
1. Was Hypolite at the murder scene.
2. Did  the shots fired by Steven “Chen” Cummings kill Sumairsingh
 3   Did Chen intend to kill Sumairsingh
3. Was there a common plan to kill.
4. Was the killing carried out in furtherance of the plan 
She ended by advising the jury that they must only find Dhanraj guilty on the strength of the case and not guilty on the  weaknesses.