Prosecutors representing the United States in its bid to have five men extradited for trial will start closing arguments on Wednesday as defence attorneys for the men wrapped up their closing statements on Tuesday.
The lead attorney for the drug accused men continued to attack the ability of prosecution witnesses to recognise the voices of the accused men in taped recorded conversations.
Wanted by the U.S. are: Austin Knowles Jr., 39; Edson Watson, 35; Shawn Corey Saunders, also known as Shawn Bruey, 33; Nathaniel Knowles, 28; and police constable Ian Bethel, 34.
Attorneys representing the five men include Queen’s Counsel Keir Starmer, Senator Damien Gomez, Elliot Lockhart, Ian Cargill and Murrio Ducille.
Francis Cumberbatch, Neil Braithwaite and Sandra D. Gardiner represent the Requesting State.
Mr. Starmer told the court that the evidence given by Special Agent Brendan D’Arcangelo who was involved in US telephone intercepts of the men – even if it was admissible was “far too weak to provide a safe basis for committal of these respondents.
“The notion that someone can safely identify – for the purpose of extradition proceedings – a voice heard several weeks ago on a telephone by engaging in short discussions with an individual in custody, weeks later is absurd.”
The evidence speaks to the voice identifications of Austin Knowles, Shawn Saunders and Edson Watson the officer heard in July, October and November 2002. Special agent D’Arcangelo said he was also present during interviews between the accused men on Dec. 17, 2002.
The attorney said, “The court should either exclude the evidence of the alleged discussions/ conversations while the respondents were in custody on Dec. 17, 2002 or stay the proceedings because the respondents are being prevented from effectively challenging the evidence by reason of the prosecution’s non-disclosure.”
Next, Mr. Starmer discussed the importance of the Judge’s Rules, which emphasises the importance of cautioning suspects and the need for recording what takes place, when a person is interrogated by a police officer or if he refuses interrogation.
In addition Mr. Starmer said, “In this case there are fundamental breaches of the Force Standing Orders and the Judge’s Rules.” Moreover, he said there was no record of his clients being cautioned or being allowed access to their lawyers before the exchanges took place, noted in December.
He also said no interviews should be conducted during extradition proceedings as they (the respondents) were arrested on an extradition warrant. The Queen’s Counsel further said, “Any potentially incriminating conversation/ discussion or ‘exchange’ between the respondents and police or other law enforcement agencies amounts to an interview within the meaning of the Force Standing Orders and or Judge’s Rules.”
He stressed that the evidence of special agent D’Arcangelo was the only link between the accused and the US intercepted telephone calls. The attorney said that the evidence on the conspiracy charge was weakened against the men.
With regard to the evidence of the two key witnesses and former co-conspirators, brothers David and Paul Mellor, the defence attorney said their evidence was weak as to be considered worthless because “the evidence of the events of Nov. 13, 2002 cannot be truthful and because their evidence contains inconsistencies and was not prepared by them and their evidence was unreliable because of their plea agreements with US authorities.”
The attorney described David Mellor’s affidavit as untrue, because he said Shawn Bruey acted as a lookout for him on Nov. 13, 2002, when it was said during that time a search of his Royal Palm Way apartment was being conducted by police.
The apartment search on the mentioned date took place between 12:10 and 3:10 p.m.
Moreover, the attorney said the Mellor brother’s affidavits contained inconsistencies and were not even prepared by them. “The evidence suggest that, in the main, David Mellor was simply allowed to copy Paul Mellor’s statement,” he said.
Kurt McBride, another key witness and former co-conspirator, Starmer said his evidence was weak, because it is riddled with inconsistencies, and the evidence is unreliable because of his plea agreement and the claim that there is no evidence of a previous conviction against him.
The prosecution will commence their closing statements today at 12 p.m.
By Jimenita Swain, The Nassau Guardian
