With Justice Charles Quin ruling that there was a case for Raziel Jeffers to answer on charges of murder, attempted murder and possession of an unlicensed firearm, the defendant elected on Tuesday not to give evidence. Instead, four witnesses were called on his behalf.
Defence Attorney Peter Champagnie closed his case on behalf of Jeffers just before the lunch adjournment. Prosecutor Andrew Radcliffe then used Tuesday afternoon to sum up the Crown’s case.
Summing up
Mr. Champagnie was scheduled to sum up for the Defence on Wednesday, after which the matter will be adjourned until Justice Quin is ready to give judgment. Jeffers, accused of fatally shooting Marcus Leon Ebanks in West Bay on 8 July, 2009, and attempting to kill four other people in the same yard, chose to be tried by judge alone.
In the trial that started on 16 January, the Crown had two main witnesses. Only Adryan Powell, who was paralysed from the waist down by gunshots he received, gave evidence identifying Jeffers as one of two gunmen who came into the yard off Bonaventure road where some young men had gathered for a social evening. The other main witness was Megan Martinez, who was 17 when she and Jeffers had a child together. She said he confessed to her, 10 months after the shooting, that he had shot Marcus by mistake, intending to kill José Sanchez, another of the young men in the yard.
In his argument that there was no case to answer, Mr. Champagnie had submitted that Adryan was mistaken in his identification. He pointed out that the teen, still 14 at the time of the incident, had been shot four times and was lying on his stomach when he said he looked up and saw Jeffers for two to four seconds when the gunman’s mask fell. That was insufficient time, especially given the circumstances and darkness, he maintained.
Credibility
As to Ms Martinez, he said her evidence was a matter of credibility and the judge would have to consider her with his “jury mind”. She had admitted lying in her initial statement to police as to the whereabouts of Jeffers on the day of the shooting. He questioned why she did not tell police until May 2010 about the confession she alleged Jeffers had made to her in March 2010.
Mr. Champagnie emphasised how Ms Martinez had agreed with him when he put suggestions to her, telling her she could agree or disagree.
The first was, ‘at no time did Raziel ever show you any weapons’. She answered, “I agree.”
The second was, ‘When you say he confessed to you, that is simply not true’. She answered, “I agree.”
In response, Mr. Radcliffe said Adryan was not identifying a stranger, he was recognising someone he knew. Adryan had described the two of them looking at each other, their eyes meeting. It was not a fleeting glimpse.
Unshaken
As to Ms Martinez, Mr. Radcliffe submitted that her evidence as to Raziel’s confession was unequivocal and unshaken. Perhaps she was tired at the end of two days in court when she answered Mr. Champagnie’s questions as she did, or perhaps she misunderstood the suggestions. Either way, she was re-examined immediately and said Raziel did show her guns and did tell her about the shooting.
Mr. Radcliffe pointed out that a submission of “no case to answer” succeeds if the evidence is so weak or so discredited that it cannot support a conviction.
In his ruling, Justice Quin commented on the evidence of both main witnesses and concluded that he could not say the evidence was so weak or so discredited that Jeffers could not be convicted. He therefore called on him for his defence.
Paramedic Shawn Paul Kelly told the court that he kept speaking with Adryan in the ambulance to check his mental condition. He asked if Adryan knew “who came at him. He said he didn’t know who it was,” Mr. Kelly reported.
Shantal Forbes-Borden told the court she had been friends with Megan Martinez. Megan introduced her to Raziel and asked Shantal to braid his hair. She did so at his mother’s house and never saw any firearms there; she never saw Megan or Raziel with any firearms. She agreed that Raziel was a close friend of her husband.
Mr. Radcliffe asked if her husband was anxious to help his friend. She replied that he would have to ask her husband.
He suggested she had been asked to come and lie to the court. “You’re getting me upset,” she replied. “No one asked me to come here.”
Well known
Sports instructor Andy Myles said he had known Raziel from the time he was born and knew his family well. Raziel’s parents interacted with him; they were good parents. Raziel played cricket for the Cayman Under-15 side and cried when they lost on tour to Jamaica. Mr. Myles said he had to comfort Raziel; he described him as “very quiet, very humble.” He knew Raziel also played football. The last time he spoke to him was some time in 2005.
Other evidence for the Defence included a letter read into the record by Peter Polack, who is instructing Mr. Champagnie. The letter was from the prison and stated that Jeffers was taken into custody 4 March, 2005, for grievous bodily harm, sentenced on 6 May, 2005, to six years imprisonment, appealed and had his sentence reduced to five years. He was released 6 March, 2008.
Mr. Champagnie had previously indicated to certain witnesses that they could not have seen Jeffers when they said they did because he was in prison.
Related Videos
