Accused hits out at ‘biased’ judge

IN A highly unusual move Friday, a State prosecutor declined to participate in selecting members of the jury to try Shawn Parris for murder. Parris, apparently finding favour with this decision by senior State attorney Wayne Rajbansie, proceeded to hurl loud criticisms at the judge in open court. Rajbansie told Justice Herbert Volney he would not participate in the selection of “the panel” (jurors) and it was a perplexed judge who then warned Rajbansie that as representative of the State, he (Rajbansie) must be truthful to his oath. “You are a representative of the State of Trinidad and Tobago. It is your duty to carry out your functions on behalf of the State and it will do you no good if you do not participate in this case,” Justice Volney told Rajbansie.

After nearly two hours of verbal clashes between the judge and attorneys and outbursts from the accused, in the San Fernando First Criminal Assizes, a 12-member jury was eventually empanelled to begin Parris’s trial. Parris is charged with the murder of Dr Chandra Narayansingh on June 29, 1994, at the Langmore Health Foundation in Palmyra. The jury, comprised of six women and six men, was chosen without a single challenge from the prosecutor and defence attorneys. The first of Parris’ outbursts occurred at around 9.30 am as the judge’s clerk began addressing the jurors for the selection of the panel. Parris’ attorney Keith Scotland rose to make a submission, but was immediately cut off by Justice Volney. “The accused has already been arraigned,” the judge declared. Parris rose from the prisoner’s docks and, before the courtroom filled with jurors, stated that he is not arraigned on murder, but had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

After Justice Volney advised Scotland to control his client otherwise the accused would be taken out of the courtroom, another situation arose when Rajbansie informed the court of his decision not to participate in the jury selection. But Justice Volney would have none of it. He told Rajbansie, “your instructions are that you filed an indictment of murder and the State has indicated it is ready. Your duty is to be true to your oath as an attorney and to continue with the case when the jury was empanelled.” The State attorney was also refused an opportunity to receive further instructions. “Your instructions are that the DPP has filed an indictment of murder,” Justice Volney retorted. Again Parris blurted out in open court that he had an agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions to plead guilty to manslaughter. “You are very prejudicial and biased against me!” Parris shouted at the judge, as five police officers sought to pull him out of the courtroom. When brought back into the courtroom, Parris would not be muzzled.
He repeated his criticisms that he was not being treated fairly by the judge. “The public has an outcry for blood and he (referring to Justice Volney) is trying to satisfy it,” Parris cried out as he was again escorted out of the court. 

Confusion continued when Scotland submitted that he could not proceed with selection of the panel without his client present in court. But the judge reminded Scotland that the court had taken a long time to reach to the point of starting the trial. Volney said, “there comes a time when the court has to put its foot down.” Scotland asked, “on me?” to which Justice Volney replied, “no, but on those who wish to ensure that this trial never gets started.” Justice Volney said that he had no interest in the matter but to see the case proceed. He added that he saw Parris’ outbursts were planned as a means to prolong the matter. As the jury selection process continued, the judge further advised jurors that he wanted to have “the fairest possible trial” consisting of a panel of persons with “an open mind and a clear heart.”