Man fights conviction by seven-member jury with same surname

Puzzlement and disbelief are now swirling in legal circles about an unprecedented case of a man who was tried and convicted for murder and wounding with intent by a seven-member jury all bearing the same last name.

In fact, several senior attorneys-at-law are contending that not only should it not have happened, but the fairness of the trial is now in question.

“This is a first.”

“I’ve never heard of such a thing.”

“This is very unusual.”

“It should never have happened.”

“This is grounds for appeal.”

Those were some of the comments from the lawyers when The Sunday Gleaner brought the situation to their attention last week.

The unusual occurrence happened in the case of Carvel Hines, who is now fighting to have his convictions for murder and wounding with intent set aside. He is contending that his constitutional rights were breached and is blaming the trial judge for failing to question the jurors to ascertain whether they were related.

But the Court of Appeal, in dismissing an application in July in which Hines was seeking to get the jury lists prepared by the Registrar of the Supreme Court for the parish of Westmoreland for 2016 and 2017, emphasised that “the court had a duty to ensure the integrity and security of the jury system”.

When the trial for Hines and his co-accused Bruce Lamey began in the Westmoreland Circuit Court in February 2017, of the 21 prospective jurors called during the empanelling, 16 bore the surname ‘Reid’.

After exhausting all peremptory challenges, the seven-member jury selected consisted of only Reids.

Defence lawyers raised concerns over the likelihood that the jurors could be related, which could impact their independence and the fairness of the trial, and sought audience with the trial judge in chambers.

The judge indicated that he would make the inquiries in open court, but that was not done. However, there was no challenge to the panel of jurors.

The jury found Hines and Lamey guilty of murder committed during a home invasion in which a woman was fatally shot and her husband shot and seriously injured.

The judge sentenced the men to life imprisonment and ordered that they each serve 33 years before becoming eligible for parole. They were also each sentenced to 18 years for wounding with intent.

King’s Counsel Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, who is representing Hines on appeal, brought an application in the Court of Appeal seeking an order that the Registrar of the Supreme Court be ordered to provide the list of jurors for Westmoreland selected for the respective terms in 2016 and 2017. The application was heard by the Court of Appeal in July 2021 and a year later, it refused the application.

Samuels-Brown had argued that the law contemplates that the public would have access to the jury lists and contended that the jury lists were created with reference to documents which were of public record and that the process of jury selection was not a secret, but rather one to which the public is entitled to have access, more so an accused person.

She submitted further that a full investigation of the issues surrounding the composition of the requisite jury lists and compliance with the Jury Act were relevant to the appellant’s concern about the connectivity and/or consanguinity among members of the jury, which could have affected the independence of each jury member.

NO EVIDENCE OF BIAS

Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Jeremy Taylor, KC, and Crown Counsel Nicholas Edmond, who represented the Crown, expressed concern regarding the appellant’s request for the disclosure of the jury lists for three court terms when the jury involved in the trial sat only during the term in which the appellant was tried.

Taylor argued that there must be some evidence before the court demonstrating why the jury lists for the two years were required. He added that there was no evidence presented that the jury was apparently biased or that the appellant’s constitutional right was breached.

In dismissing the application, the Court of Appeal – comprising Justice Marva McDonald-Bishop, Justice Evan Brown (acting) and Justice Cresencia Brown-Beckford (acting) – said the appellant did not provide any evidence that the registrar erred in her preparation of the jury list or selection of the panels of jurors for the sitting of the court.

“Even more importantly, there is also no evidence pointing, directly or inferentially, to the fact that the appellant might have been prejudiced or might not have received a fair trial because the jurors had the surname ‘Reid’,” the court ruled.

It was the court’s finding that “there was not a scintilla of evidence that could generate even a whiff of suspicion that the jurors were related in any way and, worse yet, would have acted improperly to the prejudice of the appellant”.

The court pointed out that it was not told what use would be made of the jury lists, if they were obtained.

“It seems to us that for the appellant to be sufficiently satisfied, the jurors would have to be found and interrogated, since it would not be necessarily apparent on the face of the jury list itself whether they are related or connected in any way and whether they would have known of any relationship, if any,” the court said.

It said it found no proven breach of the Jury Act and it did not agree with Samuels-Brown that the finalised list of jurors or the panels made up by the Registrar is intended or required by law to be accessible to members of the public, including a convicted person, at all times, and so should be made available to the public after the trial has ended.

The court agreed with Taylor that the stage at which the public was entitled to see the jury list was before it was settled and certified for transmission to the Registrar.

‘DANGEROUS PRECEDENT’

The court said the transcript of the trial revealed that the names were apparently alphabetically listed as they ranged from the letters N to R. The court said that, in fact, other jurors with the surname Reid were called along with others who had different surnames but were peremptorily challenged by the prosecution and the defence.

The court said there was no legal duty imposed on either the trial judge or the clerk of the court to make enquiries of the jurors regarding reasons for their surnames being the same and their relationship with each other. It ruled also that there was no legal or factual basis on which to grant the order being sought.

“We feel compelled to say that citizens who appear in court to perform their civic duties as right-minded members of society ought not to be led to believe that after they have served as jurors, there could be some subsequent investigations into who they are, their addresses, occupation, and relationship with others, including their fellow jurors, and other personal matters,” the court stated.

“It cannot be permitted for jurors who have already discharged their functions in court, as they were selected to do, without any challenge whatsoever (which is permitted by law) to be searched for, found and interrogated merely for the purposes of the Crown or a convicted offender seeking to ascertain whether anything untoward may have occurred during the trial.”

The ruling further noted, “This court has a duty to follow the law, ensure the integrity and security of the jury system and to protect the public interest in the proper administration of justice. Therefore, to give into the appellant’s request for disclosure of the jury lists in this case, and under the circumstances in which it is being made, would be a dangerous precedent, which we are not minded to establish.”

Refusing to accept the ruling, Hines maintains that the trial was unjust and said he intends to continue fighting to have his convictions overturned.

editorial@gleanerjm.com