After lengthy summations by Justice Ricardo Marques, a Supreme Court jury on Monday afternoon found murder-accused Garth Rolle guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter.
Rolle, who was accused of causing the death of his four-year-old son, Ackiem Rolle, between July 10 and Sept. 23, 2002, showed no emotion when the verdict was read. He sat with his hand clasped in his lap and his head bowed. The courtroom was also silent except for the occasional sound of someone clearing their throat.
After deliberating for about four hours, the six-man, six-woman jury voted nine-to-three not guilty to murder, and eight-to-four guilty to manslaughter.
The jury, who started their deliberation shortly after 1 p.m., around 4 p.m. asked for further clarification on a possible manslaughter verdict.
Justice Marques outlined three options: A murder verdict, simple manslaughter or manslaughter by negligence.
After the jury announced its decision, Justice Marques informed a clean-shaven Rolle, who also sported a new haircut, that he was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.
Additionally, he told him, his attorney, Romona Farquharson had requested that a Probation Report be conducted. He deferred sentencing to July 21, until which time Rolle was ordered remanded to Her Majesty's Prison, Fox Hill.
After court was adjourned, Rolle could be seen shaking the hand of his attorney before he was taken to a holding cell at the Central Police Station.
As he was being escorted from the courtroom, his family members called out to Farquharson: "You did good. You really saved him."
Shaquelle Rolle, Ackiem's mother, appeared unemotional as the verdict was read, swiftly leaving the area without comment.
Sandradee Gardiner, who represented the Crown, said that she could not say whether the jury understood what they were asked to do, because that was not her role. "The jury has spoken, and that is all I wish to say on that," she said.
Justice Marques in his summation, which lasted a little over two hours, told the jurors that the consequence of their verdict was not their concern. "You are asked to be detached and objective," he said.
He warned the jurors not to be drawn into speculation, but only to deal with the evidence before them. "When it comes to the facts, it is your judgment alone that matters," the judge stated.
On the basis of the law, he stated, the accused person did not have to prove his innocence, as he is presumed innocent until otherwise proven. He said that the burden of proof rested with the Crown, and if a reasonable doubt was left in their minds, then that burden would not have been discharged.
The main factors that the Crown had to prove, he said, were that: Ackiem Rolle was dead; that his death was caused by the infliction of unlawful harm; that death ensued a year and a day after the harm; that the unlawful harm was inflicted by the accused; and that the harm was inflicted with the intention to kill.
He said that all those ingredients would have to be proven in order for them to deliver a guilty verdict.
He also addressed the issue of simple manslaughter, which, as defined in section 289 of the Penal Code, states that anyone who causes the death of another with the exception of intent is guilty of manslaughter.
Rolle also owed a duty of care to his child, Justice Marques said, and if he breached that duty and did not provide him with care, he would be guilty of manslaughter by negligence.
The case was unusual, he said, as there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.
A murder verdict would require a unanimous verdict, he said.
By Jimenita Swain, The Nassau Guardian
