What Volney told the jury
JUSTICE Herbert Volney’s instructions to the jury yesterday in the Dr Chandra Murder Trial: In all criminal trials by judge and jury, the jury finds the facts. The judge deals with the law and instructs the jury on the law. The prosecution (State) carries the burden of proving the case against the accused. The State is not entitled to a verdict of guilty unless it calls evidence that the jury accepts to be true and establishes the guilt of the accused. The jury may only convict if all members are satisfied to the extent of being sure of guilt. If the jury is unsure, it must find in favour of the accused and return a verdict of not guilty. The jury must in all cases consider the evidence against each accused separately, hence the jury may return different views in respect of different persons. At the close of the case of the prosecution, the jury is entitled depending upon the view held of the evidence led by the prosecution, to form the judgment that the State has not led evidence on which it may convict. The jury may in this circumstance, at the stage when the case for the State is closed, make the judgment that it wishes to stop the trial for the reason that it cannot on the evidence led by the State render a verdict of guilty. The jury may not return a verdict of guilty at this stage of the trial. This is the entitlement of the jury. The task of the foreman at this stage is to poll the jurors and when asked, to indicate (1) If all the jurors are agreed and are of one view in respect of accused number 1; accused number 2 (2) And only if all jurors are agreed, to announce either that the jurors in relation to accused number 1 and/or accused number 2 — wish that the case continue or wish that the case be brought to an end by the jury’s acquittal. Seetahal: State may consider an appeal By SUSAN MOHAMMED JUSTICE Herbert Volney’s decision to advise the jury of an entitlement to acquit Seeromani Maraj-Naraynsingh and Elton Ramasir in Dr Chandra Naraynsingh’s murder after hearing only the State’s evidence, did not go down well yesterday with Special Prosecutor Dana Seetahal. Seetahal said the State may consider an appeal of the judge’s decision to let the jury members decide if they should continue to hear more evidence or stop the case. The State fought long and hard, Seetahal commented yesterday, after Maraj-Naraynsingh and Ramasir were freed, to prevent such an occurrence. Speaking to Newsday yesterday about Volney’s decision, Seetahal said, "The practice of telling the jury that they have the right to stop the case has been recently said to be not a good practice. And that is what I objected to." Lead defence attorneys Queen’s Counsel Karl Hudson-Phillips and Senior Counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj submitted that Volney had a right to inform the jury that they were entitled to stop the case if they were not satisfied with the State’s evidence. Seetahal, however, had strongly objected to the rare recourse. In her objection, she relied on a Court of Appeal decision — R versus Speechley. Seetahal quoted Justice LJ Kennedy in that judgment, who stated, "A prudent judge will say nothing at all that a jury may read that it (the jury) has a right to stop a case as an invitation to acquit." Seetahal submitted to Volney that the Court of Appeal in the case found that a judge could not accede to a submission of no-case to answer, simply because he regarded the key prosecution witness as unreliable. Seetahal said, "If case law says it is no longer a good practice and that it is difficult to see any circumstance that it should happen, then in my view one must go along with the proper way and follow the proper procedure." Maharaj, however, said there are other cases in the Commonwealth, where such a course is taken. He recalled that it was also done in the local courts. In response, Maharaj told Newsday that the defence submissions to Volney, based on Blackstone Criminal Practice 2005 edition, page 1582, relates to stopping a case before the end of the trial. The passage reads, "At common law a jury is entitled to decide at any stage after the prosecution has closed its case, that it does not need to hear any further evidence or argument but wish to acquit forthwith." Maharaj said that the last trial in which a jury stopped the case, was presided over by Justice John Braithwaite and also took place in the San Fernando First Assize Court. He recalled that the case occurred during the late 60s or early 70s and involved a police officer named "Parker." He was also on trial for murder. The jury also acquitted the accused on trial on that same basis, Maharaj said.
Comments
"What Volney told the jury"