Not guilty of attempted murder

A Grand Court jury last week found Mark Anthony Seymour not guilty of attempted murder and not guilty of firearm offences.

Seymour, 22, was charged after a shooting incident in the School Road area of George Town on Saturday, 4 February 2006.

Seymour and the complainant, Andre Burton, knew each other.

No one was injured and no gun was ever recovered. But an unknown bystander handed police a .25 spent shell said to have been picked up at the scene.

Defence Attorney Phillip McGhee suggested to jurors there was no evidence that the shell came from any gun used that day, so they could not know how it got there or where it came from. Senior Crown Counsel Andre Mon Desir told jurors they could draw an inference from what had happened.

Justice Lloyd Hibbert told jurors they had to consider the evidence without prejudice or sympathy.

‘You might say to yourselves, what is happening in the Cayman Islands? People are now resorting to use of guns and this is something to be discouraged. And because of this you might develop a prejudice against persons who are charged with using firearms.

‘Prejudice is not evidence and cannot be properly used by you,’ the judge warned.

Forensic scientist Michael V. Martinez gave expert evidence about two particles of primer gunshot residue found on swabs taken from Seymour’s arm and chest, but no such residue on his hands.

The judge told the jury that experts are witnesses who assist the court; they are not on any particular side, although they may be called by either side.

Mr. Martinez said there were three possibilities to explain why the particles were found on Seymour: that he discharged a firearm; that he handled a firearm that was recently discharged; that he was in proximity of a firearm when it was discharged.

He could not say which was more likely – they were equally likely.

The Crown’s case was that Andre Burton and a friend were returning home after going to a nightclub on Friday night. Near Burton’s residence they saw Seymour and his friend. There was an incident during which Seymour’s friend was apparently injured. The Prosecution said what Seymour did later in the morning was in retaliation.

The Defence said Burton had a motive because his windscreen was smashed and he perceived that Seymour was responsible.

The jury was reminded that Burton did not report the smashed windscreen to police when he discovered it. He said he intended to later in the day.

Neither did Seymour make any report to police about being shot at.

Burton told the court that he went to a School Road restaurant for breakfast before going to work. He saw Seymour pull up, look inside his van and then come into the restaurant saying something about somebody dying, but he couldn’t hear exactly what was said.

Seymour had his hand in his pocket and Burton thought he had a weapon, so he took out his work knife and advanced, so that Seymour backed out of the restaurant. Outside, Seymour pulled the gun and shot at Burton, who was six to eight feet away.

The only witness who said he saw a shooting was a man whose statement was read to the jury because he was off island and unable to return. This man said he heard two shots, although Burton and an off-duty policeman nearby reported only one shot.

The witness said he saw a man running and holding what looked like a Magnum, but smaller. This man was wearing a dark polo shirt and dark blue jeans.

Seymour was wearing dark blue jean-looking pants that morning, but he was not wearing any shirt.

Burton was wearing a dark shirt, but khaki shorts.

Justice Hibbert told jurors that if they were not sure, then the Prosecution had failed and the defendant was entitled to be found not guilty.

For attempted murder, jurors had to be sure that Seymour fired the shot, had no lawful justification, and intended to kill. Intention to inflict serious bodily harm would not suffice.