Sean Luke accused, Akeel Mitchell: No case for me to answer

THERE is nothing in the evidence advanced by the prosecution against one of the men charged with the murder of six-year-old Sean Luke to point to him being involved in brutal killing or forming the intent to do so.

This was one of the arguments of defence attorney Mario Merritt who represents Akeel Mitchell who is before the court at a judge-only trial, indicted for Luke’s murder sometime between March 25 and 29, 2006.

Also charged with Luke’s murder is Richard Chatoo whose attorneys did not advance a no-case submission on his behalf since they admitted they were hamstrung to do so because of a video statement he allegedly gave to the police.

Merritt insisted his client, who was 13 at the time he was charged with the murder, had no case to answer since the prosecution’s evidence was based purely on circumstantial evidence which were manifestly unreliable and will not take the court to a finding of guilt.

“Our position is that the State has failed in establishing a case against him (Mitchell),” Merritt said, adding that a link was missing from the chain of reasoning

“And, if a link is missing then it matters not how strong the other aspects of the case are the case must fall.”

Merritt said even if the DNA evidence, which linked Mitchell to the cane stalk inserted in to Luke through his anus, and spermatozoa found on the boy’s underpants, the State failed to provide evidence to link his client to the killing. He also said although sperm was found in the boy’s anus, it was not identified as belonging to Mitchell and even if you speculated it was his, the prosecution further failed to establish that the underwear Luke was wearing was clean before it could be suggested that the sperm belonged to his client.

“I think it is fatal to their case,” he said.

He also said although the defence’s case was that Mitchell was not there at all, based on the State’s case, then the question of the role he played must be answered.

He said there must be evidence that Mitchell killed, or assisted in Luke’s murder.

“Where do we get the evidence of that murder? There is no evidence as to the role played by each party in the cane field. What did he do? Did he hold him down? Push the piece of cane? Block his mouth? You must first establish the ‘joint enterprise’ engaged in to bring about the death of the deceased,” Merritt said.c

“There is nothing in the evidence against him to show there was a plan to kill,” he insisted. He also said Chatoo’s statements could not be used against Mitchel.

“What accused number two says in his evidence is evidence against him.”

Chatoo is expected to testify in his defence once the judge gives her ruling on Mitchell’s submissions on Monday.

“What evidence is there against Mitchell as to the plan (to kill), his involvement in the plan and did he execute his plan? Is it the death was something outside of the plan and if it was, it cannot support a suggestion he agreed. The State must establish there was a plan,” Merritt said.

He also pointed out that Mitchell was not interviewed by police as a suspect in Luke’s murder and said his age at the time, because of the legal principles which deem children incapable of forming the intent to commit a crime, the State was required to bring evidence of his behaviour prior to the incident.

“What is the evidence the court can use? No questions were asked of him about the actual incident or him knowing that the acts committed were criminally or morally wrong.

“He never admitted to the offence… He never indicated what his role was,” Merritt added.

Mitchell’s defence is one of alibi. He says he was not present when Luke was killed, but if the judge rules against his no-case submission, he will not testify but will call Dr Hubert Daisley who performed a second, independent, autopsy on Luke’s body. One of Daisley’s findings was strangulation as a cause of death, as opposed to the official conclusion of the State’s forensic pathologist, Dr Easlyn McDonald-Burris who said the boy died from “internal chest and abdominal injuries and hemorrhage due to a foreign object – a cane stalk – introduced into the body cavity.”

Although lead prosecutor, assistant DPP Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal was expected to reply to Merritt’s submissions, she asked for additional time since she had not had the opportunity to research some of the legal issues and authorities he relied on.

She will do so on Friday and Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds will deliver her ruling on the no-case submission on Monday.

Depending on her ruling, Mitchell and Chatoo will open their cases, with the former starting on Wednesday depending on how the judge rules. If she rules in his favour, then Chatoo will be required to open his case. He has already said he will be testifying and will ask that his step-father’s testimony given at a pre-trial challenge of evidence session be incorporated into the main trial.

Mitchell and Chatoo are also represented by attorneys Evans Welch, Kirby Joseph, Randall Raphael, Kelston Pope, and Gabriel Hernandez.

Appearing with Dougdeen-Jaglal are Anju Bhola, and Sophia Sandy-Smith for the prosecution.