Judge mulls ‘joint enterprise’ in murder trial

Justice Charles Quin may deliver his verdict this week in the matter of Jordan Manderson, who is charged with the murder of Marcos Duran in March 2010. 

The defendant, now 18, elected to be tried by judge alone. Trial began on 17 May and the judge heard evidence from over 30 witnesses, some of whose statements were read. None saw the shooting incident that resulted in the death of Mr. Duran and an injury to Mr. Manderson. 

Last week Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryll Richards summarised the case against him, explaining again that the charge of murder was based on joint enterprise. The evidence was circumstantial, she agreed. 

The principle of joint enterprise is set out in the Penal Code: When two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.  

Mr. Duran was known to sell numbers and he regularly collected money, Ms Richards said. The shootings occurred during a robbery outside an apartment building on Maliwinas way in West Bay on the night of 11 March, 2010. The Crown’s case was that Mr. Manderson was one of the robbers. 

The fact that the defendant was at the scene at the time was shown by blood at the scene that contained his DNA and his own admission after being confronted with that information. He previously had told police he was shot in another area of West Bay; later he said he did go to the apartment building, but it was to buy ganja. 

Two different sizes of bullets or bullet parts were found at the scene, .22s and .38s, which led to the inference that at least two weapons were used and at least two people were engaged in the robbery, Ms Richards said. Then, immediately after the shooting, a neighbour saw what appeared to be a male going around the side of the apartment building to the back where a track leads to another road. A doctor’s evidence was that Mr. Manderson could not have taken more than 10 steps because both bones in his lower left leg were broken.  

The court also heard evidence of cell phone records showing the times of communication between Mr. Manderson’s phone and two others and the locations of those phones at the times of the calls. 

David Fisher QC responded to the Crown’s summary, but first explained why his client had chosen to be tried by judge alone. He said the fact that Jordan Manderson had been arrested along with others (but never charged) for the February 2010 murder of four-year-old Jeremiah Barnes was an inevitable feature of the case and a jury might have been swayed by that.  

Second was a background of gang crime, with Mr. Manderson associating with a number of people who faced serious charges; that fact might adversely affect a jury, Mr. Fisher said.  

Finally there were some issues of law that provided the framework of this case that might be difficult for a jury, including joint enterprise and what the Crown must prove. 

He said there was no evidence of who the active participants were in this incident and no evidence as to the nature of their participation.  

What was the active participation of Jordan Manderson, he asked. Even if the court rejected the defendant’s account of what happened that night, how did that prove murder? 

Mr. Fisher said there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Duran was in fact robbed. He had CI$225 and US$40 on him, a police officer had told the court.  

The attorney suggested that the Crown, even on its own case, could not rule out a number of possibilities: That Mr. Duran may have had a gun and shot Mr. Manderson before he himself was shot by another; That Mr. Duran may have shot Mr. Manderson before being shot by Mr. Manderson in self-defence; That Mr. Manderson may have been a party to a joint enterprise to rob but was totally unaware that the other parties had guns and would go way beyond the scope of the joint enterprise he was party to. 

“These possibilities cannot be disproved,” Mr. Fisher asserted.