Fahie writes to court asking for it to determine whether jurors gave ‘their’ verdicts
The letter to a Miami federal court was entered on February 13, 2024, and came after two jurors sought to recant their positions regarding the unanimous verdict against Mr Fahie, who was found guilty of drug and racketeering-related charges earlier this month.
Fahie was scheduled to be sentenced on April 29, 2024, after he was convicted on February 8 after a trial that lasted eight days, with the 12-member jury returning guilty verdicts 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.
But in an unusual situation, two of the jurors have contacted the judge to say they did not actually agree with the guilty verdicts, presenting a rare predicament on whether or not a jury’s verdict stands if members later recant their on-the-record position.
Was guilty verdict indeed unanimous? Fahie wants to know!
Fahie in his letter stated several reasons why the court should consider whether the verdict was indeed unanimous.
“Immediately upon confirming that the jury was back in the jury room by the sound of the closing door, counsel for the defense advised the Court that Juror B looked at both defense had engaged in eye contact with her during or immediately after the polling and facially indicated concern, and that the same juror had done so for a second time moments later when exiting the jury box, with another heightened expression of concern. Defense counsel noted that it appeared that the juror was indicating some issue with some part of the process that had just concluded, but could offer no more than counsel’s impressions,” the letter to the court stated.
The letter also noted that when an issue such as that presently before the Court arises, the Court must determine whether the misconduct occurred and whether it was prejudicial.
Mr Fahie said the defense does not suggest some free-wheeling exchange with Jurors B and C. Rather, the defense proposes that the issue, a decidedly delicate one, should be inquired of individually and in stages. In essence, Jurors B and C should be repolled as to whether the verdicts as published are their verdicts.
Judge Kathleen M. Williams has called this scenario unprecedented and acknowledged her limited options and has since ordered both sides to file motions on the matter by this Thursday, February 15, 2024.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
32 Responses to “Fahie writes to court asking for it to determine whether jurors gave ‘their’ verdicts”
From an article:
“Immediately after the verdict was read in the Miami courtroom, all 12 jurors were polled individually. Each one said Fahie was guilty. But one juror twice made eye contact with Fahie’s attorneys with a look of distress and appeared to pause before saying “yes” to Fahie’s guilt, defense attorney Theresa Van Vliet told the court. Judge Kathleen Williams noted the interaction but took no further action.
The proceedings ended at 6 p.m. but government and defense attorneys were called back. Two jurors had lagged behind after the others left to tell court staff their minds had not been made up as to Fahie’s guilt in at least one of the four crimes, according to court records.
One of the now-undecided jurors also tried several times to reach a member of Fahie’s defense team by phone, saying he wanted to know what was happening with the case and didn’t think the jury would ever come to an agreement. The defense attorney advised their conversation was inappropriate and hung up.
What exactly will happen with the case is unclear. The New York-based legal journal Law360 reported Judge Williams called the situation a “worst-case scenario.” A Florida attorney commenting below the article agreed, saying the judge had very limited good options in such a situation.
Although on the surface, it might appear the judge’s options could range from doing nothing to declaring a mistrial, long-held rules and Supreme Court rules protect jury decisions from being second-guessed, according to reports filed by both prosecutors and Fahie’s attorneys. A jury’s verdict is supposed to be the end of their final involvement in a trial, after which they are supposed to anonymously return to their regular life.
The manner of how a verdict is reached, so long as there was no misconduct, is not supposed to be queried, according to court records. And anything jurors say after the verdict is not supposed to reflect on the verdict.
Fahie’s attorney suggested the court ask the two jurors if the verdict — guilty on all counts — was indeed their verdict.
Prosecutors warned of attacking the jury, citing a trial rule protecting verdicts — Rule 606 — and precedents where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of shielding juries from public scrutiny. Losing sides in a trial are not allowed to challenge a verdict by arguing it resulted from compromise, mistake, or carelessness, according to court records.
“The government maintains that Rule 606 and Eleventh Circuit precedent demand that the jury’s verdict remain respected and undisturbed, whether or not defendant opts to file a motion for a new trial or mistrial based on post-verdict, post-polling, and post-discharge juror statements. There is no “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible” evidence or reason to believe that the jury ever considered extraneous prejudicial information, experienced outside influence, made a mistake on the verdict form, or relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict the defendant,” prosecutors told the court.
Should the court deem it necessary, any further polling of the jury should be addressed to the foreperson rather than the two complaining jurors, prosecutors said.
“Should the foreperson respond that the verdict form does not contain any mistakes, the court should end its inquiry and the jury’s verdict must remain respected and undisturbed. Importantly, consistent with Rule 606(b), the government believes the court should refrain from asking the foreperson how the jury arrived at its verdict or whether certain jurors were displeased with the verdict, as this is expressly barred by Eleventh Circuit precedent as inquiry into purely internal matters,” they continued. “The court should also not inquire directly of any other jurors about whether the verdict form contains any mistakes because each juror already, under oath, told the Court that the published verdict was — in fact — their verdict. A juror’s subsequent recantation, dissatisfaction, or anger with the deliberation process or the outcome cannot be the basis for impeaching a verdict.”
So you are saying the Fahie should take his U.S case to the Privy Council? RIDICULOUS!!!!
RS testimony alone without some form of corroboration by BVI Authorities would be useless so I doubt she would be a good witness to present. How could you carry out a sting operation without some cooperation with the Authorities?
It would be interesting to know what was said on that voicemail that the juror left on the defense attorney's work phone. That could make a difference. We should know more tomorrow. Also are the two jurors in disagreement with the verdicts on all 4 charges?
I see a mistrial here.
Starting from the BVI to Miami, and all the other political stories involved including COI, the arrest of Government Officials, the three previous Governors, Royal Virgin Police Force and whatever occurred from the past (before) to present.
It should begin from the inauguration of the NDP (National Democratic Party) to present. It should also include when Andrew became the representative of the First District to Premier to his sentencing and whatever follows.
Name of the Movie: "The BVI Political Affair"
Did anyone force you to this verdict, plus other questions. Uncle Sam no play with drugs barons. The drue have no business being in this mess. He framed himself because of greed. That lawyer may be trying to creating a situation where she can continue to milk the coach cookie jar.
himself , you ain't nobody without your slavemaster , and he ain't white •¿•
That is disturbing.
Ponder on it!
I'll fix it for you: Andrew Fahie, convicted felon, drug smuggler and money launderer. Is that better?