In his closing speech on behalf of defendant Sheldon Brown, Paul Purnell QC quoted a saying that, he explained, was carved above a gate in ancient Rome: ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.’
He referred to media attention and a build-up of gossip about the case they were dealing with, but said jurors did not want anything unjust to occur.
Mr. Purnell addressed the jury on Friday. After Mr. Justice Dale Sanderson completed his charge to the jury on Monday, deliberations began. A little over four hours later, a unanimous verdict was returned: guilty of attempted murder.
Mr. Purnell had submitted two questions for jurors’ consideration: Had the Prosecution proved that they could accept Fernando Martin’s account of how he was shot or was it utterly inconsistent? Did they utterly reject the defendant’s alibi, or might it be true?
Everything else was subordinate to those two questions, he said.
The Crown had cited a supposed motive for the shooting – that Sheldon, having been acquitted in a court of law – then thought it necessary or desired to eliminate Fernando. That did not make sense, Mr. Purnell declared.
He described Fernando as an extraordinary man who had given statements against, apparently, five people.
About his shooting, he had given facts utterly inconsistent with each other. Some could have arisen from the shock of the experience, but some were fundamental.
Fernando had told the court about a mystery girl who had come to his room before he was shot. There was inconsistency in his evidence about when prior phone contact had been made, whether they had just talked or had sex when she arrived; whether he heard her make a phone call to order pizza or whether she went into the bathroom and he didn’t hear her.
Then he had said that when there was a knock on the door and he went to open it, there was a man with a pizza company visor and a pizza. But in one of his statements he had said the man did not have a pizza.
After closing the door to get money to pay for the pizza, he said he had opened the door again and recognised Sheldon Brown with a dark cloth over the lower part of his face. But previously he had said there was no obstruction.
In a statement he had said the first man at the door was Sheldon. But he had told the jury that the first man had the pizza visor and the second man was Sheldon.
And when Fernando was first seen by police he said it was Sheldon and two Jamaicans who had attacked him.
There was more, Mr. Purnell said, referring jurors to books of photographs taken at the scene of the shooting. The photos showed something that could not possibly fit into Fernando’s story.
He had said that when he opened the door and the shooter was in his face, he turned and ran inside and received the shots. But the photos showed empty casings, a live bullet and a damaged bullet, all outside the premises. How could they be on the ground outside if Fernando’s account was the whole of what happened that night?
Unanswered questions went to the heart of the Crown’s case, he said. Jurors should not lose sight of the fact that the Prosecution had to prove its case; the defendant did not have to prove innocence.
Mr. Purnell noted that no traces of blood attributable to Fernando Martin were found on the clothing seized from Sheldon’s home.
The attorney referred to Martin’s medical history. Prior to August 2004, he had experienced hallucinations and had been treated with anti-depressants and anti-psychotic medications.
The Prosecution had fairly asked why Fernando would pick on Sheldon to be the shooter if it weren’t true. But Fernando had accused Sheldon of threatening him; Sheldon had represented himself at trial and had been acquitted. What could be more aggravating than that?
Given Martin’s unstable mental condition, that was reason for mentioning Sheldon Brown. And since Martin was in a witness protection scheme, was it better for Fernando to name the man he was really frightened of or was it easier to name Sheldon?
The woman who had been the contact between Fernando and the mystery girl had told the court she did not take the girl to Fernando’s room the night of 17 August.
She was not a friend of Sheldon’s and had not seen him for several years before passing him in the street the weekend before the shooting. But gunshot residue was found on her vehicle, which had nothing to do with Sheldon Brown.
Mr. Purnell referred to the Prosecution’s comments about Sheldon’s packed suitcase and the fact that he vomited.
If Brown knew he would be the first suspect, what would he do – shoot the man, come home and go to bed, pack the suitcase and wait? The real explanation for the suitcase was boring – Sheldon had thought he could get bail before his trial and go with his wife on a business trip she was taking.
After he didn’t get bail, his suitcase sat in the back of the car for weeks. It was such an ordinary explanation, but it made sense.
Mr. Purnell reminded the jury that four of the officers who went to Sheldon’s house for his arrest had practised at the shooting range that very day. The vehicle in which Sheldon was transported to the police station was used to carry officers and arms.
The Defence could not say it was proven that there was contamination, but they did not have to.
The Crown’s expert witness had conceded that cross-contamination was one way in which someone could have gunshot residue on him, but he did not give it the same weight as the other ways (firing a gun, touching it afterwards, being in close proximity when it is fired).
A study had been referred to that showed it was possible for someone to fire a gun and not get gunshot residue from the firing. But that study did not refer to multiple firings, Mr. Purnell reminded jurors. The Defence expert, A. J. Schwoeble, had been emphatic that, if you multiple-fire a gun you will get an accumulation of gunshot residue.
In this case, there were at most five particles of residue on the shirt and two on Sheldon’s hand. Both the hand and the T-shirt were susceptible to contamination and did not fit multiple-firing.
Alibi
Mr. Purnell pointed out that the Defence did not have to prove Sheldon’s alibi; it was for the Prosecution to disprove it. Unless the Prosecution could satisfy the jurors the alibi was not true, they could not convict.
The defendant’s wife had given a detailed recollection of a night she would never forget. In giving evidence and saying Sheldon had been home all evening, Mrs. Brown had been examined in detail and reminded of everything she had told police.
But when Sheldon was taken away, she was taken away also and locked up. It was during her time in custody that she was interviewed. There was no opportunity for her to get together with Sheldon to compare accounts.
Of course, Mrs. Brown wanted to help her husband. But she was a lady who was overwhelmingly convincing in her account, Mr. Purnell said.
Related Videos
