BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – COUNSEL for Romeo ‘Buncome’ Cannonier, Edward Fitzgerald, based in the United Kingdom, gave five arguments in his appeal for his client’s conviction and sentence for the July 25, 2004 murder of Police Officer Delvin Nisbett.
After Cannonier was convicted he had been given the death penalty.
In his client’s appeal of conviction he presented arguments on the refusal of alibi witnesses, treatment of Gavin Gilbert’s evidence and prejudicial references to killing of Gilbert. According to evidence presented in the case, Nisbett, while walking along the stretch of road between Parsons Village and Dieppe Bay, was approached by Cannonier and shot in excess of four times about the body.
Other evidence in the case was that on the day following the incident, Cannonier confessed to his then girlfriend, that he shot and killed a police officer. It was also revealed that Cannonier had asked his former girlfriend to steal a gun from Michael Powell, with whom she was also friendly at that time, and when she refused, he told her that he would steal the gun himself.
Further evidence revealed that the gun used to kill Officer Nisbett belonged to Powell.
In reviewing the prosecution’s evidence at the trial, Fitzgerald said Cannonier was identified in Dieppe Bay around the time of the incident.
He said there was a confession to his girlfriend that he killed a police but did not intend to kill him. He also said that Dion Daniel saw two men struggling and that Cannonier confessed to Gavin Gilbert in jail. Fitzgerald said that the Gavin Gilbert situation was a ‘classic cellmate confession’ and does not know what Gilbert was promised by police as he was also facing charges.
He said that the girlfriend had an axe to grind because there was a case of missing money from her.
DNA was found on an EC$5 note that was said to be taken from Cannonier’s trousers along with other bank notes.
He said Police Officer Pearline Tross made no markings on the money found in Cannonier’s trousers. Money was also taken from the crotch area of the deceased.“There were no markings; could have been a risk that they touched each other and then were passed on to Officer Browne,” he said.
He said that the money that was thought to be that taken from Cannonier was sent to the United States for DNA testing.Fitzgerald said there is a real risk that the notes got mixed up and perhaps contaminated.
“One cannot firmly state that the note tested was the one taken from Cannonier as it was not marked,” he said.
In terms of the refusal of the alibi, Fitzgerald said that Cannonier’s counsel at trial should have given notice of an alibi, but Cannonier was unrepresented at his committal.
He said later on that Hesketh Benjamin was appointed as his lawyer, and Cannonier told Benjamin he wanted to call his sister as an alibi but no notice was served. In terms of Gavin Gilbert’s evidence, Fitzgerald said the witness was unreliable and that it is unknown whether he received a deal for his statement.
“What happened to his charges? Were they dropped? His evidence shouldn’t have been permitted since he was dead and counsel was unable to cross-examine. The judge should have warned the jury that evidence was untested by cross-examination,” he said.
Fitzgerald also said that the evidence should not have been given in the presence of the jury. The counsel also said that at Nisbett’s trial several police officers made remarks about Gilbert’s killing during their testimony and that the trial judge interrupted the defense counsel during his closing arguments and that the Judge’s criticism of the defence counsel was exaggerated and unfair.
“ (It) wasn’t right in front of the jury,” he said.
In terms of appealing the sentence his arguments are that the judge did not deal with the possibility of reformation for his client and also he raised the question to the Judge as to whether the case was the worst of the worst or rarest of the rare cases.
“It would never be enough for the judge to say this is the gravest of the grave… he would have to say this is the rarest of the rare and worst of the worst and there is no possibility of reform for him to justify him getting the death penalty,” he said.
Fitzgerald told the Justices of Appeal that the murder was not a planned revenge killing, and one cannot conclude from the evidence given that it was a planned killing.
He said there is possibility for reform.
In response to the arguments, the prosecution which is led by Sir Richard Cheltenham of Barbados, said that when Officer Tross handed over the monies to Officer Browne they were in two separate envelopes.
In terms of the alibi, Cheltenham said that Cannonier claimed to be at home sleeping between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. on the night of the murder.
He also said that Cannonier gave no names of alibi at the Magistrate/Preliminary Inquiry hearing. He said an Officer saw Cannonier sometime after 11 p.m. walking towards a ghaut while Cannonier said that it was after 1 a.m.
In terms of the evidence from his girlfriend, Cheltenham said that she noticed he was not himself and appeared nervous. Cheltenham said Cannonier told her that he did something ‘bad’ and that he killed a police and’ took money off of him’. “He also told her where he got the gun and that it was Powell’s gun,” the prosecutor said.
He also said that Powell had reported his gun stolen and that the gun was found where Cannonier said it was. He said that Gavin Gilbert’s evidence was confirmatory evidence and was dead before the P.I took place.
He said after Cannonier had confessed to him in prison, he did not report it to the police.
“He only reported it when the gun was found at the home of Vincent Warner. Warner said he got it from Gilbert when he was taken to the police and asked how he got the gun. He had no benefit. This was not a classic cellmate situation; the facts don’t support that,” he said.
In terms of his sentencing, Cheltenham said the revenge notion was justified as he told his girlfriend the police officer use to “ruff him up while he was in prison”. He said that evidence suggests that Cannonier has a complex personality disorder and that he cannot empathize.
“We have to be concerned with realistic reform or we’ll make a joke of the whole thing. There is no real prospect of reform; Cannonier knew at all times what he was doing.
“He meant to kill him; I urge the court the decision should stand. The case falls among one of the worst or the worst. He did it to a policeman and was able to report that the next morning to his girlfriend,” Cheltenham said.
The Justices of Appeal will review the arguments and make a decision on Cannonier’s fate.
