Roger Pratt Murder Trial Defence Lawyer Says: ‘If the evidence does not fit, you must acquit!

During the Roger Pratt murder trial last Friday, investigating officer Bertly Ferdinand read to the court several statements taken from defendants Richie Kern, Jeromine Jones, Fanis Joseph and Kervin Devaux, in 2014. Ferdinand testified that on January 24, 2014—in the presence of Justice of the Peace Bealy Jn. Baptiste— she formally charged the four men individually with murder. She told the court Kern and Joseph both said: “I have nothing to say.” Jones said: “I didn’t even touch the man,” while Devaux stated: “…I admit to the robbery but to beating and murder, I don’t know about that.” 

Following cross-examination by the defence, DPP Greene rested the crown’s case. Judge Margaret Price-Findlay informed the accused that it was now their turn to put up a defence. Each was given the option to remain seated, go to the witness box, or call witnesses. Joseph, Jones and Devaux chose to remain seated. Kern opted to call two witnesses. 

On Tuesday Kern’s attorney Sandy John called psychiatrist Dr. Julius Gilliard to the stand. The witness stated that on February 10, 2020 he visited the Bordelais Correctional Facility to interview Kern, in accordance with a court order, to determine the defendant’s mental state as at January 17, 2014.

The witness testified that his evaluation was inconclusive. The witness said he also interviewed Kern’s mother and read hospital notes and medical files from St. Jude Hospital and Bordelais Correctional Facility respectively, and Kern’s statements at the time of his arrest. Still Dr. Gilliard could not ascertain “within a reasonable area of medical certainty” Kern’s mental state on January 17, 2014.

When the trial resumed following a lunch break, Sandy  John indicated that a witness he had planned to call would no longer take the stand. On Wednesday the court heard closing arguments from DPP Greene and all defence attorneys except Sandy John. Alberton Richelieu cautioned jurors that they needed to be sure as to the respective the attorney said, was to rob, with no intention to kill. “The fact of the matter is, if you are in doubt as to what Jeromine Jones did, you have to acquit him!” 

Representing Fanis Joseph, George Charlemagne reminded jurors that it was the responsibility of the Crown to prove the defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that if they had any doubt about any aspect, the benefit of such doubt had to be given in favour of his client. “If you are in doubt, you cannot convict him,” he stated. 

“The bottom line,” the attorney continued, “is that the prosecution did not provide any evidence to refute what was in Joseph’s evidence.” Joseph is adamant that he stayed on a small boat and did not participate in the matter at hand. Reminiscent of Johnnie Cochran, Charlemagne said: “If the evidence doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”  

Attorney David Moyston referenced Kervin Devaux’s admission only to robbery. Moyston said his client’s admitted intention to commit robbery could not be extended to an intention to commit murder. The attorney also referenced widow Margaret Pratt’s testimony that the assailants had asked: “Where is the fucking money?” To which she had responded, “There is no fucking money!” This, the attorney said, shows what was the defendants’ purpose on the yacht. 

After hours of deliberation, the jury rendered its verdict at about 2:00 pm on Friday. Kervin Devaux, Jeromine Jones and Richie Kern were all found guilty of murder. Fanis Joseph was found guilty of manslaughter. Sentencing is scheduled to take place on April 6, 2020.

“I am pleased that the jury had quite a task and that they were able to return with a verdict of manslaughter. I would prefer a better outcome for my client but the jury has spoken at this time,” George Charlemagne told reporters following the ruling.

Said David Moyston: “I was hoping for a different outcome in this matter. It’s not really what I expected but at the end of the day, the jury adjudicated and came to a verdict.”

DPP Daarsrean Greene said that he was satisfied with the outcome to some extent, and praised the jury for their effort made in coming to a decision. He expressed hope that this can be the beginning of some closure for Margaret Pratt, who “has waited such a long time for justice in this matter.” The DPP said he believed that the Crown presented the case as best as they could, and that the tribunal of fact did their job diligently.