SAVANNA-LA-MAR, Westmoreland — The seven-member jury in the Mario Deane trial is to be handed the case for deliberations today.

The revelation was made Wednesday by Supreme Court judge, Justice Courtney Daye, during his second day of summation and instructions to the jury. However, when court resumes at 9:00 am, before the jury begins to weigh the evidence and arguments, the judge will instruct them on how to treat the unsworn statements provided by the three accused cops charged in connection with the 2014 fatal beating of the 31-year-old construction worker while he was in police custody.

The three accused are Corporal Elaine Stewart along with district constables Marlon Grant and Juliana Clevon. They are all charged with manslaughter and misconduct in a public office.

On Wednesday all three sat and listened attentively from the prisoners’ dock as the judge outlined the remaining two of three charges and what to look out for in arriving at a decision. Count two is related to misconduct in a public office and count one focuses on doing acts intended to pervert the course of justice.

A day earlier, the judge had dealt with count three — manslaughter by gross negligence — and outlined six elements that the Crown must prove to secure a conviction for this offence.

On Wednesday, Justice Daye told the jury that count two is similar to count three. However, he noted that while there are similarities, there is a difference in that the aspect of causing death is not present in count two.

The judge suggested to the jury that, in their deliberations, they should consider count three first before addressing the second count.

The judge also outlined to the jury the elements of the case that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction related to misconduct in a public office.

“In this charge the prosecution must show that the conduct was deliberate at the time — doing something that was deliberate, unlawful, and reckless in disregard of whether it was wrong or not,” stated Justice Daye.

Regarding the charge of doing acts intended to pervert the course of justice, the judge referenced the testimony of former Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) senior investigator Mollie Plummer, who told the court that Section 21 of the Indecom Act states that a crime scene should not be tampered with and that nothing should be done to obstruct its investigation.

“The question is: In this offence, was an investigation about to be started? And did she do that in order to interfere or to prevent an investigation?” stated Justice Daye in reference to the actions of Stewart.