Judge scolds teen over lying

Jordan Manderson, 18, was released from custody Tuesday
after Justice Charles Quin found him not guilty of murder, but not before he
gave him a serious talking to.

The judge said there was insufficient evidence to satisfy
him that Mr. Manderson was guilty of murdering Marcos Mauricio Duran, 29,
outside a West Bay apartment building on the evening of 11 March 2010. Mr.
Duran died from a gunshot wound to the head. 

The defendant was also shot that evening. The bullet
fractured the large bone of his lower left leg, causing the smaller bone to
break because it could not bear his body weight. Mr. Manderson initially told
police he was shot in another area of West Bay. Later, he said he lied because
he did not want to get in trouble for breaking his curfew. Later, he agreed he
was at the murder scene, but said he went for ganja and lied about being there
because he did not want to be accused of Mr. Duran’s murder.  

 The Crown’s case, as presented by Cheryll Richards,
director of Public Prosecutions, was one of joint enterprise – that there was a
plan to rob Mr. Duran, who was said to be a known numbers seller, and Mr.
Manderson was one of the robbers. Mr. Duran was shot outside a customer’s
apartment, on the upstairs landing.

The Crown contended Mr. Manderson received his injury during
the same incident. The surgeon who operated on him was asked if the wound could
have been self-inflicted, but he said that question was outside his area of
expertise. Mr. Manderson said two men had come to the apartment building while
he was there and one of them had shot him. He first named one and then the
other.  

Justice Quin reminded him of his lies to his parents and to
police: “You have given so many accounts that it’s hard to know exactly what
happened. 

“Not only did you not assist the police about how and where
you were shot, you told them you were shot at a different location so you sent
the police off on a wild goose chase. Your lies meant that they wasted an awful
lot of time, valuable police time and effort, carrying out an investigation
that they had no need to carry out regarding how and where you were shot. If
you had told them the truth there was absolutely no need for them to waste that
time and effort.” 

“Yes, sir,” Mr. Manderson replied. 

The judge urged him to think about his future and what he
wanted to do with his life. “With any luck you can live a long time,” he
concluded. The defendant agreed with both remarks. 

He also agreed there was no evidence the firearms in the
case have been recovered. 

Justice Quin pointed out, “Somebody, somewhere knows where
they are or what happened to them. I just would say it’s time for people to
stop withholding this vital information and to give unconditional and
unqualified support to the police force. … If we are to stop these violent
crimes we must all help and support the police and respect law and order. It is
the only way that we can make the Cayman Islands safe and peaceful again, and
that must be everybody’s wish.” 

After court adjourned, Defence Attorney Lucy Organ, who had
instructed attorney David Fisher for the murder trial, took Mr. Manderson
before a magistrate in connection with matters he had been on bail for at the
time of the shooting. The magistrate restored his bail with the previous
conditions, one being a curfew. 

Mr. Manderson was 16 when Marcos Duran was killed. Arrested
the following month, he turned 17 and then 18 in custody. He elected trial by
judge alone and on 17 May Justice Quin began hearing evidence from more than 40
witnesses. 

In setting out his reasons for reaching the verdict of not
guilty, Justice Quin said that Mr. Manderson’s lies, although disturbing, did
not prove he was guilty of murder. There were no eye witnesses to the shooting,
no fingerprint evidence, no guns or evidence linking Mr. Manderson to any gun. 

A tam was found at the scene and it contained a mixed
DNA profile, consistent with the DNA of both Mr. Duran and Mr. Manderson. However,
there was no evidence either one of them wore a tam. 

It was accepted that Mr. Manderson was shot at the
scene and his DNA was recovered from his blood found on the stairs. The judge
pointed out that at least seven and possibly 11 people went up those stairs,
including the paramedics who removed Mr. Duran’s body.  

“I cannot rule out a possible secondary transfer [of DNA],
and in any event, the DNA does not conclusively prove the defendant had a gun
or shot the deceased or even took an active part in the murder,” he said. 

Cellphone records showed calls were made between certain
phones, but the calls did not reveal any joint enterprise or plan to rob.  

In summary, he said there was no evidence as to who
participated in the robbery or even if there was a robbery, since Mr. Duran was
found with money in his wallet. There was no evidence of who organised the
robbery or any particulars of which participant did what. 

The judge asked himself a series of questions: Could he be
sure the defendant knew of the planned robbery and took an active part before
and at the time of the killing? Even if he knew and took part, did he know guns
were part of the plan? Even if he knew about guns, could the judge be sure the
defendant was aware there was a real likelihood, or even a possibility, that
one of the other participants would kill Mr. Duran? Could he be sure on the
evidence before him that Mr. Manderson killed Mr. Duran or that one of the
alleged participants killed him? 

Justice Quin found there was no evidence before him that Mr.
Manderson knew of the guns or that he used a gun or authorised another person
to use a gun or that he foresaw that there was a real possibility a gun would
be used to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.