Defence re-opens case before judge starts summation

In an unusual move yesterday defence attorneys in the Clint Huggins murder trial sought and got leave of the court to reopen their case moments before trial judge Justice Alice Yorke Soo-Hon was to start her summation to the jury.

The application to reopen by attorney Ian Stuart Brook who represents accused Arnold Huggins was not resisted by State prosecutors Wayne Rajbansie. Brook recalled the State’s main witness Swarsattie Maharaj to the witness stand and further questioned her about the larceny of a pig she and six other persons were charged with and its outcome. During her evidence in chief on April 2, she told Rajbansie that she was not convicted on that charge. But an extract of the court’s proceedings in that matter produced by Brook showed that Maharaj and five other persons who were charged had pleaded guilty. Only one pleaded not guilty and was discharged.

The extract also revealed that Maharaj and the other five were ordered to pay compensation in the sum of $3,000 divided equally among them. This meant that each had to pay $500 or in default serve six weeks simple imprisonment. Maharaj’s explanation was that at the time she did not think of it as a conviction and had forgotten certain aspects of the case. As a matter of fact, she said she did not pay the $500 nor had she gone to jail. To the suggestion that she had lied to Rajbansie and mislead the jury, she said it was not deliberate. Brook also recalled Supt Stephen Quashie for re-examination.

Stuart ended by a short address to the jury on that specific issue of Maharaj’s conviction. Other defence attorneys, Osbourne Charles SC representing accused Junior Phillip and Keith Scotland and Dawn Mohan representing Leslie Huggins, did not re-examine Maharaj, nor did Rajbansie who is assisted by Natasha George.  Phillip, Leslie and Arnold are before the Port-of-Spain Third Criminal Court charged with the murder of Clint Huggins on February 20, 1996. Clint was the main witness against Dole Chadee and his gang for murder. The State is alleging that the accused were offered a $3M contract to kill Clint.  Justice Soo-Hon started her summation by telling the jury that it was for them to accept or reject all or part of the evidence of witnesses, noting that even honest witnesses could make mistakes.  She listed some of the evidence that was not in dispute, telling them that they would have to form their own judgement as to whose evidence is in dispute.

The 12-member jury were further told that they must decide the case only on the evidence before them and that they must do so dispassionately. Justice Soo-Hon explained to the jury that they were entitled to draw inferences but not to speculate what evidence there might have been, and wherever they found equal inferences it must go in favour of the accused. During her summation, she said, she would refer to certain aspects of the evidence but the jury could refer to all. She explained that the prosecution is saying that the three accused were on the scene and the defence was saying they were not there. But the facts of the case are that part of the evidence they found to be true. Justice Soo-Hon reminded the jury that they must consider the evidence of each accused separately and return separate verdicts. She reviewed the State’s case and gave directions on joint enterprise and of previous inconsistent statements of witnesses. Today Justice Soo-Hon will continue her summation to the jury.