Former Premier Andrew Fahie has requested the court to exercise its discretion and repoll Jurors B and C regarding their recently published guilty verdicts following his trial.

The 12-member jury found Fahie guilty of four counts on Thursday, relating to conspiracy to import a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine into the United States, conspiracy to commit money laundering, attempted money laundering and interstate travel in aid of racketeering.

Court documents seen by 284 Media revealed that immediately after the jury returned to the jury room, Fahie’s attorney raised concerns about Juror B’s expressions of concern. Counsel noted that the juror had looked at both defence counsel and engaged in eye contact during or after polling, indicating unease with some part of the process.

The document further stated that the court, initially taking no immediate action, reconvened the parties after being advised by its staff that Juror B and Juror C had approached them, asserting that the published verdicts were not their actual decisions. The subsequent discussion between the court and counsel revolved around how to address the revelations and what statements should be made to Jurors B and C.

The court brought the two jurors back into the courtroom, informing them of a future investigation or inquiry related to the information they provided to the court’s staff before discharging them once again. The prosecution then suggested resuming jury deliberations, but this was met with objection from the defence and ultimately rejected by the court due to the discharge of the jury.

As a result, Fahie’s legal team made several requests at the court’s status conference on Monday, February 12, 2024. Fahie’s defence is proposing individual and staged inquiries, asking Jurors B and C if the published verdicts align with their actual decisions. The defence also recommends republishing the verdicts before posing the question.

It was further noted that if either juror answers negatively, the court should then repoll for each count to identify where unanimity is lacking. Conversely, if both jurors affirm the published verdicts, the matter should not be probed further unless additional grounds arise.

More to come on this developing story.