Devon Anglin, the defendant on trial for the murder of 4-year-old Jeremiah Barnes, opted Wednesday not to give evidence in the case.
After the Crown closed its case on Wednesday morning, lead defense counsel David Fisher advised Justice Charles Quin that Anglin would not be giving evidence, nor would he be calling any evidence.
Crown prosecutor Andrew Radcliffe summed up the case against Anglin, listing evidence he said supported the identification of him as the gunman who fatally shot the boy at the Service Station on Feb. 15, 2010. Anglin was named as the shooter by Jeremiah’s parents, who were in the front seats of their car while their two young sons were in the rear seats.
Both parents knew Anglin from growing up in West Bay. Their evidence was not the identification of a stranger, but rather the recognition of someone familiar to them, Mr. Radcliffe pointed out.
They may have made mistakes on some points in their evidence, but it had to be remembered that the shooting took place six years ago, and Anglin’s first trial was four years ago, he said.
Mr. Radcliffe said it was impossible to imagine that any parent would want someone other than the true killer to be prosecuted.
The Crown’s case is that the gunman’s intended victim was Jeremiah’s father, Andy Barnes. Anglin is charged with the murder of Jeremiah, who was 4 years old at the time; the attempted murder of Mr. Barnes; and possession of an unlicensed firearm. No firearm was ever recovered.
When court took the lunch adjournment, Mr. Radcliffe was summarizing the evidence that he said supported the identification of Anglin as the shooter.
Mr. Fisher was then expected to summarize the case for the defense.
The judge asked if the attorneys had any general directions they wanted him to consider. These included circumstantial evidence and how to treat the evidence of expert witnesses.
Justice Quin said he would not read the judgment of the Court of Appeal that overturned Anglin’s acquittal after his first trial in 2011. The only exception was that he would read the part that dealt with what the appeal court identified as the first trial judge’s error in interpretation of law.