“Judging from the medical report, there is totally no doubt in my mind that the VC sustained a gunshot wound to his left leg by someone on that fateful day. The question is: ‘Who is that someone?’”
Magistrate Bertie Pompey made the comment on Thursday morning as he announced his decisions, upholding no-case submissions made Wednesday by defense lawyers Ronald Marks and Duane Daniel at the close of the prosecution’s case in the trial which lasted almost a week.
The magistrate’s upholding of the no-case submissions acquitted Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Karim Nelson and Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly and government senator Ashelle Morgan of criminal charges brought against them following the April 13, 2021 shooting of 62-year old businessman Cornelius John at his residence in Diamond.
Nelson was charged with unlawfully wounding John and unlawfully discharging a firearm at him.
Morgan was charged with criminally assaulting John.
Marks represented Nelson and Daniel represented Morgan.
John had positively identified Morgan as one of three persons who stormed onto his property, uninvited, sometime after John had used some harsh words as his wife Nicole returned home in Morgan’s car.
John and his wife had been living apart, across the street from each other, since December 31st, 2020, when she moved out following a domestic dispute.
John told the court last week that his wife was to meet him at the farm on April 13, as they continued their livelihood, but she never showed up. Instead, she left home and returned later in the afternoon.
John’s wife told the court on Monday that he was in the vicinity when Morgan dropped her off and he used certain language and he spoke of getting a machine gun and grenade. She said Morgan was in her car but her husband did not refer specifically to anyone.
She said she subsequently had a conversation via cell phone with Morgan who asked her what she should do. She said she told Morgan to do as she wished.
Sometime after, same afternoon, according to John, three persons (two males and a female) stormed onto his property uninvited as he was in his porch on the ground floor of the two-storey house. The taller of the two males asked him why he wanted to kill the senator. There was a verbal exchange and the taller kicked him off the concrete block he was sitting on.
John said the taller man, who was wearing mask, glasses and a cap, kicked him about the body then shot him in the left foot. He was unable to identify his assailant.
Delivering his decisions Thursday morning on the no-case submissions Wednesday, Pompey stated:“It is the prosecution’s case that the second defendant Ashelle Morgan committed the offence of criminal assault on Cornelius John. The defense has denied this charge. The issue boils down to the virtual complainant’s word against the second defendant’s word.”
Pompey said he preferred the evidence of the Morgan to that of John who has a credibility issue.
“(ii) the VC’s wife testified she was at the time in her porch just across the road from the VC’s residence and was able to see when the taller man pushed her husband but did not see the second defendant Ashelle Morgan took out a gun and point it to the VC’s face. That’s impossible to see one thing and not the other.
“(iii) The failure by the VC to mention the assault by Morgan to the first responders in Rochel Franklyn and sergeant Prescott.
“(iv) No mention was made by the VC to the police that the second used expletives during the commission of the alleged criminal assault.
“The court finds that the criminal assault charge against Morgan cannot be sustained. She is therefore acquitted of criminally assaulting Cornelius John,” Pompey said.
The magistrate said 11 witnesses testified on behalf of the crown but at no time did anyone of them was able link the first defendant Karim Nelson to the offense of wounding Cornelius John.
“Suffice to say, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
“There was not one iota of evidence linking the first defendant to the offense of wounding Cornelius John or discharging a firearm at him. I am absolutely in doubt as to who this taller man was.
“That being said, both charges are therefore dismissed,” magistrate Pompey said.
Morgan’s lawyer contended that during cross-examination detective corporal Henry Hoyte indicated that the only evidence against Morgan was from John. He said Hoyte also told the court that there was no other person to say Morgan had a gun or made threats. He also said that while auxiliary officer Rochel Franklyn claimed to have identified Morgan on her way to and from the scene, she did not see her with any gun, nor did she see the transaction at the time of the shooting.
Daniel contended that while John’s wife Nicole claimed to have seen Morgan, she said that she saw the three people, including Morgan, in Mr. John’s yard. He said she did not give any evidence in relation to Morgan having a gun, nor Morgan adopting a posture over Mr. John in keeping with his evidence of her pointing a gun to his head, nor did she indicate hearing Morgan’s voice at all.
Daniel noted that Hoyte said Morgan had no known criminal conviction and that was an important facet in considering the likelihood of Morgan to commit the offence. He contended that she should be taken as a person of good character.
Daniel outlined a number of situations which indicated John’s propensity to be violent: a conviction for an offence against Mr John, albeit decades old; evidence that on April 13, 2021 he threatened to chop the neck of his wife, and sacrifice her head and blood to the devil; a report made to the police by Mrs John on April 14, 2021 for threatening language he made on April 13, 2021; threats on April 13, 2021 made in respect of killing Mrs John’s children who are also Mr John’s own children; threats made on April 13, 2021 to kill his own grandchild; threats made on April 13, 2021 involving the use of a machine gun and a grenade; and a station diary entry of a call by Ms Morgan that Mr John was making threats on April 13, 2021 and she needed the assistance of the police.
“This greatly and significantly shakes the fabric of the credibility of Mr John as a witness of truth, since he, under oath, stated categorically that he made no threats to his wife,” he said.
In his submission, Marks contended that there were only three persons who could assist the court in identifying the taller man wearing a mask and a cap. He said no one placed his client on the scene. He noted the prosecution’s attempt at circumstantial evidence.
Marks contended that the police said a 9mm shell was found at the scene but his client’s was a .40, which is a larger calibre.
Marks contended that positive identification was completely lacking.
The prosecutor, Stephen Brette, agreed with Daniel that it was John’s word against Morgan’s in the words uttered. He however contended that in the absence of corroboration the court can convict on the evidence of one witness alone in a trial.
On the issue of credibility, the prosecutor recalled that the court had overruled objections he had made when Marks was cross-examining John. He noted that he had objected to Marks asking John about his religious beliefs. He contended also that John was questioned about his past involving violence and incidents involving his family.
Brette asked the court to disabuse its mind from what John said in response to the attempts by the prosecution to discredit him. He noted that he had strongly objected to John’s past conviction being entered into evidence and contended that it should be considered by the court in assessing his credibility.
Meanwhile, John has a matter pending before the court in which he is accused of using threatening language to Morgan.
