Today Thursday March 7th, 2024 in an unprecedented decision, U.S District Judge Kathleen Williams subpoenaed two jurors who expressed grievances and initially sought to recant their guilty vote in the trial of former British Virgin Islands premier Andrew Fahie on drug trafficking.

Today, only one of the two jurors showed up in the judge’s courtroom.

Following a series of questions U.S District Judge Kathleen Williams asked the one juror whether her guilty verdicts at the end of Fahie’s Feb. 8 trial were actually her decision, to which she responded, “Yes.”

Following which Judge Williams allowed the 12-person jury’s guilty verdicts to stand, leaving Fahie vulnerable to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years up to life in prison on the main charge of conspiring to import cocaine through the British territory into the United States. Fahie, 53, was also found guilty of three other charges involving money laundering and racketeering. His sentencing is set for April 29 in Miami federal court.

See previous story.


Today March 7th, 2024 in Florida, USA, federal prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to return to court to seek to resolve post trial backtracking by jurors in the trail against former BVI Premier Andrew A. Fahie.

Fahie who remains in custody, was scheduled to be sentenced on April 29th, 2024, after he was convicted by a 12-member jury on February 8th on charges of conspiracy to import a controlled substance, conspiracy to engage in money laundering, attempted money laundering, and interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering.

The trail lasted eight days and in a very peculiar turn of events, two of the jurors- a man and a woman- contacted the judge shortly after to say they did not actually agree with all of the guilty verdicts.

This despite the fact that the jury had already been polled in court on their decision and discharged from duty.

This presents a rare predicament – can a jury’s verdict stand if members later recant their on-the-record position?

Per the report by court reporter Jay Weaver, legal experts say generally verdicts cannot be revisited post-discharge unless external pressure was applied or racism was somehow involved in a way that would have been unfair to the defendent.

Neither is believed to apply to the case here.

Fahie’s defense lawyer has requested re-polling the two dissenting jurors, if not all 12. But the prosecution argues the unanimous verdicts must stand since no “mistake” was made on the verdict form.

It is unclear if the Jurors feelings are in regard to all the charges or just one or more.

The matter is further complicated by constitutional restrictions on probing jury deliberations. The judge has called this scenario unprecedented and acknowledged her limited options.

One new development is that a dissenting juror reportedly left a voicemail with the defense that attorneys have not yet listened to. The contents may provide insight on the change of heart.

For now, the post-verdict juror issue injects uncertainty into the high-profile case.

Judge Kathleen Williams has expressed frustration over finding a legal basis to resolve the verdict problem, called their discussions “meaningful.” But she pressed both sides to continue examining past cases in South Florida and around the country to help her reach a “just solution.”

Fahie wrote to the court asking for it to determine whether jurors gave ‘their’ verdicts.