A victory for jury tampering
The recent decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Adidja “Vybz Kartel” Palmer murder case lays the foundation for future offenders for the creation of a dummies’ guide to corrupting a jury.
I have seen criminals, dunces, and blind supporters celebrating this victory that will ultimately be short-lived.
None of the reactions from those groups surprise me. It is the myriad attorneys I have seen acting as if this was a tactical legal victory for a wrongfully accused group of men that surprises me, or rather, disappoints me.
The appeal did not succeed because evidence was improperly presented, preserved, or admitted into the case. It succeeded because a juror attempted to bribe other jurors to secure an acquittal.
This is not conjecture — Vybz Kartel was convicted of the offence in a court of law. There can be no pride in a victory that emanated from a criminal act, there can only be shame. The result of this will likely be a retrial at massive cost to the Government’s purse, the exposure of police officers, prosecutors, and witnesses to risk, and further grief to the family of the deceased.
That being said, a retrial must happen. Evil must not be allowed to triumph. The case was the best investigated and prosecuted that I have ever seen in the three decades of my involvement in the judicial system. I have never seen guilt proven beyond a greater shadow of a doubt. Therefore, if the case is not retried the message that will be sent will be: “Get the best defence attorneys money can buy and if that doesn’t work, bribe a juror.”
There is also the issue of human suffering. It is too important to be ignored because of inconvenience or expense. That is whether it is at the hands of tyrants in a time of war or by wealthy, popular people in a time of peace. A human being was killed. Aspects of the crime were videotaped and placed into evidence, as well as voice notes and phone records. An eyewitness in a living representation of the fact that friendship trumps all gave evidence at unbelievable risk in the most consistently violent country in the pan-American region. The family of the victim will live with the reality of what took place on the night they lost their loved one.
This experience happens to so many in our country that we have forgotten the pain felt by individuals, and the terror felt by victims in their final moments. It’s not okay to kill and it’s not okay to get away with it just because it happens often. Even though we don’t know why the juror tried to corrupt his fellow jurors, we do know that the juror in question was trying to achieve an acquittal. This is very relevant.
What can we learn from this? Firstly, that the jury system must go. It is based on a backward, antiquated legal principle of being tried by your peers. The concept that random members of the public are going to understand the complex legal matters relating to murder and other high court issues is absurd. If it is such an impenetrable right, then why don’t accused persons have the right to trial by jury in the parish or gun courts?
You can get decades of prison time in the gun court. The only reason that juries are still a part of our system is that change is slow in Jamaica and we are stuck in the habit of saying “no”.
“No. It can’t happen; it’s unconstitutional.”
“No. It can’t happen; it’s too expensive.”
“No. It can’t happen, because our international partners won’t like it.”
The real answer is that it can’t change because we all have only seen it this way. This is not limited to juries. We just don’t embrace change. So we find excuses to live in a skewed reality — keeping systems that do not reflect our needs, but rather our customs. That is why we insist on using parliamentarians, rather than specialists, as ministers. So a brilliant man like Nigel Clarke will have to be leaping and prancing on political stages in preparation for the upcoming election, rather than focusing on our economy.
That is why we have no remand acts, no police reserve, and no categorisation of gangs as terrorists — simply because we never have, nothing more.
So bail is the question on everyone’s lips. Can it happen? Well, firstly, are any of them serving a sentence for a separate offence? If so, that’s out of the question for that individual. Additionally, you would have to consider whether any of the accused had previous convictions.
Then there is the issue of whether the presumption of innocence still exists in a situation like this. Frankly, I’m not sure it does.
There is also the haunting issue as to who motivated the conspiracy to bribe the jury. If it was one or all of the accused and they can do this when they are behind bars, what can they do when they are out in public? Or it could be motivated by someone who has nothing to do with the accused. You never know.
So one of the accused is ill. Is that grounds for bail? I think it could be. However, convicted people, when sick, are not released from custody. They are treated under guard in hospital or they are taken to hospital when necessary. So what’s the big difference when you are an accused?
Maybe it’s time for the defence to remember that plea bargaining is now a part of our legal system. Thirteen years of custody have already been served. Seems like a good case to plea out.
Can you imagine if it is tried this time and they get 40 years?
Food for thought.
Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com