Slain presidential guard…Prosecutors rebuff identification complication in murder trial

Jan 31, 2013 News

Prosecutors in the High Court trial of murder accused, Jevon Ismond and Mortimer Melville, yesterday presented closing arguments to support that the means of identifying the accused were clear and fair. The state agents, Renita Singh and Diana Kaulesar, are seeking from the 12-member mix jury, a guilty verdict in relation to the death of presidential guard, Nazir Alli.
The man was shot to death when he sought to defend himself and family during a robbery at their East Coast Demerara home.
It was the prosecutors’ turn yesterday to address the court in a summed up address relating to the evidence complied against the accused. The factors of the case heavily depend on the issue of identification, with the defence for Ismond claiming mistaken identity and lawyer for Mortimer, Hookumchand, claiming that the man was

Jevon Ismond (left) and Melville Mortimer

wrongly accused.
Another point is Ismond’s lawyer’s claim that his client is not liable for  Alli’s death since the robbery was over at the time the guard was shot.
Prosecutor Kaulesar, who is leading the case for the state, posited that the identification parade which was conducted in 2007 for both accused was fair. She argued that the two accused were misleading the court when one stood in the witness box and the other stood in the prisoners’ box to say that they knew nothing about the crime. The men had stated that on the day of the incident they were not at the scene and played no part in the robbery and thus had no idea how Alli died.
She said the circumstances surrounding the identification of the accused by the main eyewitness, who is the decease’s sister, were good. Kaulesar was at the time talking about the lighting, the witness’s distance from the accused and her ability to see the robbers and later point them out.
The number two’s relation to the matter is however, peculiar since his lawyer is asking the jury to exempt him from the murder charge because according to him, Alli was killed after the robbery took place.
Attorney Richard Compton, in his closing statement said that the evidence against Ismond should be viewed separate from that of the number one, Mortimer, who is accused of actually shooting the deceased. He claimed that his client was not positively identified by witnesses in the police identification parade and neither did the prosecution show how the witness was able to make connections with the “red-skinned man” she said shot her brother and the accused who is also of fair complexion.
Apart from that, Compton sought to highlight that in the felony-murder; that the number one had gone off and done his own thing when he shot the deceased after the robbery had occurred. He charged that it was not a part of the plan to rob the store, therefore Ismond could not be held responsible for Alli’s death.
The prosecution however charged that Ismond was at the time present and that the robbery was a joint venture. She further claimed that the robbery could not be over until the robbers left the location. Once they were still on the scene, Singh implied that the robbery would still be in progress, and as a principle of law, the team should share the responsibility.
The court will sum up the case on Monday after which, the jury will deliberate.