Despite being found guilty on all counts relating to cocaine and money laundering charges on February 8, nearly two weeks following the verdict, the legal saga relating to the Andrew Fahie trial continues as a federal judge grapples with unresolved doubts raised by two jurors about their guilty verdicts.

The latest development in what has been termed an unprecedented trial, came on Tuesday, February 20 following a virtual hearing before U.S District Judge Kathleen Williams.

During the hearing which was conducted via Zoom, Williams expressed frustration as she urged federal prosecutors and defence attorneys to return to court on March 7 with potential legal solutions to the complex issue. While acknowledging the unusual nature of the case Judge Williams urged both the prosecution and the defence to search for precedents in South Florida and beyond as she emphasized the need for a just resolution.

Williams also cautioned both sides against any contact with the 12 jurors who served during Fahie’s trial, highlighting the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

In a recent court submission, the prosecution vehemently urged the court to respect the guilty verdict handed down on February 8. Fahie was found guilty on charges related to conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, money laundering, attempted money laundering, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering.

The prosecution emphasized the importance of adhering to Federal Rule of Evidence 606 and the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida precedent to maintain the sanctity of the jury’s decision. It argued that there is no clear evidence of external influence, mistakes in the verdict form, or racial stereotypes influencing the jury’s decision.

Meanwhile, Fahie’s defence called on the court to exercise discretion and repoll Jurors B and C regarding their published guilty verdicts. The defence proposed individual and staged inquiries to ascertain if the published verdicts aligned with the jurors’ actual decisions. The defence recommended republishing the verdicts before posing the question.

The legal teams are navigating uncharted waters, and the resolution of this complex case remains uncertain. The court’s decision on March 7 could set a precedent for future legal challenges in the state of Florida.