Jury finds woman accused of attempting to influence jury innocent!
By Pauline Waruguru
Nevis Reporter-SKNVibes.com
~~Adz:Right~~ CHARLESTOWN, Nevis – DAWN CHALLENGER, charged with attempting to influence a juror during the Eric Weekes’ murder case in 2005, was acquitted yesterday (Nov. 5) at the Nevis Circuit Court in Charlestown.
Challenger, who pleaded not guilty to the charge, was alleged to have committed the offence on November 22, 2005 in Pond Hill when she made a call at 9.00 p.m. to the home of the jury Foreman, Jasper Stapleton. At the time of the call, Stapleton was asleep and his wife, Lorna, had answered the telephone.
According to Lorna’s testimony, Challenger had asked her where her husband could be located. “I told her he was sleeping. She told me, ‘I want your husband to let my son come home.’ She was referring to her son, Kismoy Challenger, who was a suspect with others in Eric Weekes murder case,” Lorna said.
Lorna told the court that Challenger was not a regular caller to the family’s home and that her relationship with her was “hi and hello”, although the two women’s daughters attend the same school. She however admitted that her husband and Challenger’s husband were friends.
“She also asked me how my daughter was and told me to tell her goodnight”, Lorna said and added that Challenger told her that her daughter was taking her brother’s (Kismoy) trial “very hard”.
Lorna also told the court that she did not recognise Challengers’ voice but had identified the number on her caller ID, which read 469-2306.
“Later in the evening when my husband woke up, I spoke with him,” Lorna said.
In his testimony, Stapleton admitted that the information relayed to the wife had “disturbed him” and he had reported the matter to relevant authorities, following which Challenger was arrested and charged.
Defence attorney Anthony Johnson argued that there was no recorded voice identification and the only document made available in court were print outs from Cable and Wireless of the calls made by Challenger to Stapleton’s residence.
He also argued that a court order requiring Cable and Wireless to print out the calls was not submitted in court, and to this end Justice Francis Belle rejected the print outs as evidence.
The Senior High Court Bailiff, John Arthurton, who was a witness in the case, said that on July 5, 2006 he had received the print outs from Cable and Wireless and handed them to the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department, Inspector Hilroy Brandy, at his request.
The defence counsel however told Inspector Brandy that in the first place, the investigations into the matter should not have amounted to a charge.
According to Johnson, the legislation speaks to attempt to influencing a jury as an exercise where a person corrupts the process by threats, writing a letter or offering bribes and, “Common law requires a form of corruption on the attempt to influence the juror by money, by promises, letters or persuasions.” But Justice Belle told him that what needed to be proven was whether there was an attempt to influence and not necessarily the elements used to persuade.
Justice Belle alerted Johnson that in the local culture, persons may not speak directly but could still convey the intended message, noting “the current legislation was made in St. Kitts and Nevis and takes care of St. Kitts and Nevis common norms”.
In his address to the jury, Justice Belle said the case before the court would be dependent on circumstantial evidence as there was no recorded voice, no court order and no evidence of presence of person(s) when Challenger and Lorna had the telephone conversation. He also guided members of the jury by telling them that circumstantial evidence has to have relevant facts.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Pauline Hendrickson, told the jury that Challenger’s case was important for jury system and administration of justice in St. Kitts and Nevis. She told the jury that the accused had attempted to influence Stapleton in his functions as the Foreman for jury in the Eric Weekes murder trial.
“We have proven the accused is guilty of trying to influence Jasper,” she said and added that when Lorna had spoken to her husband, “he was disturbed”.
In his closing argument, Johnson said what had transpired when Challenger made the call was “a personal expression of a desire, not any message being directed by anyone”, and asked, “Was it expected to influence the outcome of a trial?”
Justice Belle, in his address to the jury, said they were the judges of the facts. “The prosecution is asking you to infer on Jasper’s statement that he was disturbed. The offence is against the law…against the administration of justice.”
He told the jury to return a verdict as to whether Challenger made the call with the intention of influencing the jury. He also advised members of the jury not to allow their emotions to influence their decision and to be impartial in return of their verdict.
The jury retired yesterday afternoon after the two-day long trial and sometime thereafter returned with a not guilty verdict.
