bahamiangoddess
06-20-08, - 11:58 AM
June 20th, 2008
Judge “Erred” In Murder Trial
By TOSHEENA ROBINSON-BLAIR
The Court of Appeal on Thursday handed down a ruling, which essentially states that a Supreme Court justice "erred" when he directed a jury to acquit a man accused of murdering a nine-year-old boy in 2004.
Despite the new ruling, at the end of the day, Earl Connel Darville, will still remain free.
Darville was charged with murdering Devaughn Knowles sometime between June 23 and June 26, 2004.
The boy disappeared from the basketball court located near his Wulff Road home, according to police.
A preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter, at the end of which, a Supreme Court trial was ordered.
Presiding over the trial – which commenced on August 27, 2007 – was Justice Stephen Isaacs.
The defendant pleaded not guilty in the matter and his attorney argued that his confession – which they claimed was coerced – be ruled inadmissible because it was not voluntarily made.
Darville told the court that he had been handcuffed to a chair, his feet tied to another chair and a plastic bag placed over his head. He claimed he had been kicked, stomped and beaten "to the point of passing out" before he signed the confession statement.
A voir dire, or a trial within a trial, was held in which a number of police officers and witnesses gave evidence that he was not beaten. The defendant testified as well.
In the voire dire, the prosecution suggested that the defendant’s motive for confessing was his desire to "make a clean breast of his guilt."
In its written ruling, the Court of Appeal agreed with Prosecutor Franklyn Williams’ argument that in ruling the disputed confession statement "inadmissible" Justice Isaacs seemed to have done so on the basis that he did not believe the confession statement to be true and "in so doing the trial judge erred in law."
At the end of the voire dire exercise, the judge threw out the statement and directed the jury to formally acquit the defendant.
In the 17-page ruling, Court of Appeal Justice Emmanuel Osadebay not only set out how future voir dire should be conducted; he also wrote: "I am of the view that in ruling the disputed confession inadmissible the learned judge took into account irrelevant considerations."
Attorney Remauld Ferreira represented Darville in the Court of Appeal.
Under law, the Office of the Attorney General is not allowed to retry someone who has been acquitted.
Judge “Erred” In Murder Trial
By TOSHEENA ROBINSON-BLAIR
The Court of Appeal on Thursday handed down a ruling, which essentially states that a Supreme Court justice "erred" when he directed a jury to acquit a man accused of murdering a nine-year-old boy in 2004.
Despite the new ruling, at the end of the day, Earl Connel Darville, will still remain free.
Darville was charged with murdering Devaughn Knowles sometime between June 23 and June 26, 2004.
The boy disappeared from the basketball court located near his Wulff Road home, according to police.
A preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter, at the end of which, a Supreme Court trial was ordered.
Presiding over the trial – which commenced on August 27, 2007 – was Justice Stephen Isaacs.
The defendant pleaded not guilty in the matter and his attorney argued that his confession – which they claimed was coerced – be ruled inadmissible because it was not voluntarily made.
Darville told the court that he had been handcuffed to a chair, his feet tied to another chair and a plastic bag placed over his head. He claimed he had been kicked, stomped and beaten "to the point of passing out" before he signed the confession statement.
A voir dire, or a trial within a trial, was held in which a number of police officers and witnesses gave evidence that he was not beaten. The defendant testified as well.
In the voire dire, the prosecution suggested that the defendant’s motive for confessing was his desire to "make a clean breast of his guilt."
In its written ruling, the Court of Appeal agreed with Prosecutor Franklyn Williams’ argument that in ruling the disputed confession statement "inadmissible" Justice Isaacs seemed to have done so on the basis that he did not believe the confession statement to be true and "in so doing the trial judge erred in law."
At the end of the voire dire exercise, the judge threw out the statement and directed the jury to formally acquit the defendant.
In the 17-page ruling, Court of Appeal Justice Emmanuel Osadebay not only set out how future voir dire should be conducted; he also wrote: "I am of the view that in ruling the disputed confession inadmissible the learned judge took into account irrelevant considerations."
Attorney Remauld Ferreira represented Darville in the Court of Appeal.
Under law, the Office of the Attorney General is not allowed to retry someone who has been acquitted.