t 4:20 pm on Monday 2
December Judge Neville Smith called the six woman and three man jury back into
the High Court. In response to his question as to whether they had reached a
verdict, the jury forewoman replied "no." He followed up by asking,
"Do you think you can reach a verdict?" After some waffling, she told
him no, and he discharged the jury. While Judge Smith made no comment about
the hung jury that day, the next day in court, he remarked that "I was
very disappointed because that jury did not return a verdict."As a result, David Lawrence is back in the prison in Basseterre awaiting the Director of Public Prosecution's decision as to whether he will stand trial a third time for the murder of Police Superintendent Jude Matthew. DPP Joan Joyner told The Observer on Tuesday that she had not yet made a decision on the matter.
The jury had deliberated for over four hours and remained deadlocked with eight jurors saying that the prosecution had not convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt that Lawrence was guilty and one holding out for a conviction. Judge Smith told the jury that "according to the Juries Act, if a judge is satisfied after four hours that the jury will not reach a verdict, he can discharge them."
That morning the jury listened for nearly three hours as the judge "summed up the law and the evidence," before "turning the case over to you." He reminded them that "you collectively are the judges of the facts... and what conclusions you can safely make from that evidence." He warned the jurors against letting sympathy for either party "cloud your judgement."
He stated over and over again that the evidence must "make you feel sure that the murder was committed and that it was committed by David Lawrence." Judge Smith pointed to the accused each time he spoke his name. He instructed them about the nature of circumstantial evidence, stressing that "if there is any possibility of interpreting the evidence in any way which leads to a conclusion of not guilty, you must return that verdict."
Summarizing the Evidence
Judge Smith reviewed the evidence presented in the case, including the testimony given by each of the 33 witnesses called by the prosecution. He said that a masked man shot Jude Matthew on the morning of 13 October 1994 and that several witnesses saw a man flee from the scene heading east. Shortly thereafter David Lawrence was arrested near Challengers with a gun which ballistic evidence showed was used to kill Matthew. He had a mask in his boot which was similar to one described by witnesses on the scene of the crime.
In reviewing the defence case, he told the jury that the statement given by Lawrence from the dock couldn't "prove anything unless it is supported by evidence given under oath." Judge Smith reminded the jurors that Lawrence claimed he "did not shoot Jude Matthew" and was not in Franklands on that day. He summarised Lawrence's statement about being in the area "to meet a boat from St. Maarten to pick up some stuff." He repeated Lawrence's claim that his gun had been switched with the murder weapon.
The judge pointed out the areas of agreement and disagreement between the prosecution and the defence, highlighting the areas where the jury must decide whose account to believe. The jury left to begin its deliberations at noon.
Loud voices could be heard coming out of the jury room on several occasions during their discussions. At 3:15 the judge called the jurors back to check on their progress. The forewoman told him that they were split eight to one, though she didn't say in what direction. He asked if any further instructions from the judge would be helpful, but she said no.
Shortly after the jurors resumed their deliberations they requested that the gun be brought to them for further examination. When the jury was originally sent out the judge gave them all the exhibits in the case except the gun, noting that their "discussions might get heated." After it was clear that no decision would be reached, Judge Smith joked with the jurors that he hoped they hadn't attempted to "persuade that person [who disagreed] with the gun."
In evaluating the case, one question which looms large is why the prosecution chose not to introduce David Lawrence's confession, which had been made in the aftermath of the murder. When asked about this in the course of the trial, prosecution sources said that they felt the other evidence was sufficient. Through hi cross-exmination, it appeared that Defence Attorney Fitzroy Bryant was laying the groundwork to challenge such a submission.
A second area in which the prosecution could be second guessed is in relation to the murder weapon. Members of the jury reported that the discrepancy between the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Wilson, a forensic scientist who examined the Tech-9 pistol, and that of four police witnesses was a significant factor in their inability to make a decision. While Dr. Wilson responded to cross-examination by saying that there was "heavy blood staining" on both the gun and the strap, none of the four police witnesses, who handled the gun and testified about it mentioned any blood on the weapon. This difference provided some reason for jurors to believe Lawrence's assertion that the gun in evidence was not his gun.
The lack of a verdict in this case leaves an open wound to continue festering on the body politic of St. Kitts.
