In a recent court submission to the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, the prosecution in the trial of former premier Andrew Fahie has emphatically urged the court to respect the guilty verdict handed down on Thursday, February 8.
Fahie was found guilty of four counts relating to conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, conspiracy to commit money laundering, attempted money laundering and interstate travel in aid of racketeering.
According to the filed court document seen by 284 Media, the submission underscored the importance of the court adhering to Federal Rule of Evidence 606 and the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida precedent to preserve the sanctity of the jury’s decision.
The prosecution contended that there is no “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible” evidence or reason to believe that the 12-member jury was influenced by extraneous prejudicial information, outside influence, mistakes on the verdict form, or racial stereotypes in convicting the defendant. Citing a previous case as a precedent, the prosecution maintained the integrity of the trial process and insisted that they uphold the jury’s verdict.
The prosecution also argued that the jury’s decision should remain respected and undisturbed even in the event that Fahie’s legal opts to file a motion for a new trial or mistrial based on post-verdict, post-polling, and post-discharge juror statements. They referenced Rule 606 and the Eleventh Circuit precedent as the guiding principles in this regard.
In the submission, the government further proposed a cautious approach by the court should a further investigation be deemed necessary. The prosecution requested that any inquiry be limited solely to the jurors in question, as demonstrated in a previously established case. They proposed a straightforward question for the jurors: “Are there any mistakes on the verdict form?” Noting if no mistakes were confirmed, the prosecution suggested that the court conclude its inquiry, affirming the validity of the jury’s decision.
To that end the prosecution strongly advised against direct inquiries with other jurors, highlighting that each juror had already, under oath, affirmed that the published verdict was their true verdict. The submission firmly asserts that subsequent expressions of dissatisfaction or recantations by jurors should not be grounds for impeaching the verdict.
This development resulted from the actions of two of the jurors who contacted the judge approximately 30 minutes following the verdicts to say they did not agree with the guilty verdicts.
Fahie’s legal team subsequently requested the court to exercise its discretion and repoll Jurors B and C regarding their recently published guilty verdicts following his trial.