DEFENCE lawyers from the Crawle trial yesterday blasted critics of the jury verdict that freed Reneto Admas and his men of first degree murder, at a post-trial press conference that itself was an unusual occurence in Jamaican legal cases.

But some of the controversy surrounding the high-profile trial continues to follow one of the defence attorneys K Churchill Neita, QC, president of the private Liguanea Club.

One of the 12 members of the Crawle jury that acquitted the policemen, an architect by profession, serves on the board of Neita’s club.

Neita said yesterday that the issue was raised with presiding judge Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe two days into the trial.

“The trial judge took the view that there was not sufficient basis on which he would exercise his discretion in disqualifying this gentleman,” said Neita.

Describing Wolfe as “an impartial umpire” throughout the trial, Neita, who was one of three attorneys appearing for Adams, said all jurors were asked during the selection phase if there were any circumstances that would prevent them from arriving at a decision based solely on the evidence.

The 12 jurors were selected from more than 160 candidates, at least 10 of whom said at the time that they could not serve because they had already made up their minds – a significant number in favour of Adams.

Neita said during the trial he had no contact with his club member, and neither did he engage in any business dealings with the club.

He told yesterday’s press conference, held at his Duke Street offices in Kingston, that in other jurisdictions where he has worked, the jury list was made available to the defence, and it included their addresses. In this case, it was not available and neither did the defence request it, he said.

Earl Witter, another of the defence lawyers, then commented that one member of the jury was related by blood to a member of staff in the DPP’s office.

Tuesday’s acquittal of Adams and corporals Shane Lyons and Patrick Coke of the murders of Lewina Thompson, Angella Richards, Kirk Gordon, and Matthew James, has been attacked by Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ), Families Against State Terrorism (FAST) and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) through its spokesman on justice, Delroy Chuck, a lawyer.

Said Chuck: “Four innocent persons are dead and there is no evidence that they held a gun or fired a shot. or that they posed any danger to the policemen when they were killed.”

Sixteen attorneys fought the case – eleven for the defence and five for the prosection, with Director of Public Prosecutions Kent Pantry leading the marshalling of evidence.

Yesterday, five of the defence lawyers – Neita, Witter, Valerie Neita-Robertson, Debra Martin, and Gladstone Wilson – said they had noted an emerging pattern of maligning the character of public servants when court decisions run counter to expectations.

The defence team felt it necessary to call the press conference because, said Neita, of the scurrilous attack on the credibility of the justice system, and particularly the jury system, by local and international groups.

“There are a number of persons who have an interest to serve and who are obviously peeved at the outcome of the verdict,” said the lawyer.

“We have a concern, not about the outbursts which we say are unfounded, irrational and mischievous in some instances, but there are people from abroad who are attempting to impugn the integrity of our system without even knowing what evidence was adduced at the trial.”

The Crawle trial, one of the most intensely fought and publicly watched trials in recent history, lasted seven weeks and two days, during which 48 witnesses gave evidence, including local and British experts on forensics, ballistics, and telecommunications.

The majority of the witnesses were called by the crown.

“It is important that the people of Jamaica appreciate that it was a trial that was conducted with eminent fairness,” said Neita.

“It was a trial that the state had all of its resources employed to ensure that the prosecution presented the best cases that they could, using experts from Scotland Yard with all the modern technology available.”

According to Neita, the maligning of individuals largely centred on cases involving accused cops, and began with the decision in the Braeton case. That case also involved SSP Adams and members of his then Crime Management Unit, who were also acquitted of murder charges in the death of seven men, several of them teenagers, killed in what the police said was a shoot-out at a house in Braeton, St Catherine, and continued to the December 3 verdict freeing another three policemen of murder charges in the shooting of a teenaged boy, Jason Smith.

In the Crawle case, six policemen were intially charged with the four murders, but three – Roderick Collier, Lenford Gordon and Devon Bernard – were acquitted as the defence closed its case, as there was insufficient evidence of their having committed a crime.

Neita said the case against Adams was based solely on the testimony of Constable Tyrone Brown, who said he witnessed, in Kingston, the collection and handing over of a firearm to Adams at Crawle, which was later planted at the scene of the shootings.

The lawyers also pointed to footage from CVM television of the same scene after 8:00 pm, which showed two firearms on the ground of the death house, while Brown testified that he was on his way to the scene, with the collected gun, and that the affadavit of Sopheleta Clayton, a police informant who was murdered before the trial, had placed wanted man Bashington ‘Chen Chen’ Douglas on the scene with a gun.