A Murder in the Bahamas – British v. American Criminal Justice System

Supreme Court Number 2, Nassau, Bahamas

A few years ago, I had an interesting first-hand initiation into the Bahamian criminal justice system. The Bahamas gained their independence in 1973 and had previously been a British Crown Colony. Their political and judicial system is still heavily influenced by Britain. I had traveled there multiple times in the past on criminal cases and had even met with high ranking police officials on a case involving money laundering, but I had never before attended a court proceeding for a murder trial.

I met the Bahamian defendant’s father in Miami on the Wednesday before the murder trial which was set to begin in Nassau on Monday.  A Miami attorney had suggested that he meet with me. He knew that I was an experienced criminal defense investigator, and he was seeking some very last-minute assistance. He had retained a top Nassau criminal lawyer, yet I was very surprised to learn that the defense had not retained a DNA expert. As I soon learned, the prosecution case was largely based upon DNA analysis of blood spatter at the crime scene.

The defense attorney had a defense based, in part, on the defendant’s physical limitations due to an injury that would have prevented him from committing such a brutal murder. There were also no witnesses placing him at the scene, nor did he have a criminal record or anger management issues. I explained that if the government’s case was based upon the testimony of a DNA expert, then we had to immediately find and retain a defense DNA expert to hopefully refute the testimony.

The next few days were a whirlwind of telephone calls and meetings to find an expert capable of assisting the defense on such short notice.  I also spent this time conducting the background investigation on the prosecution’s expert who was educated in the U.S. and also lived in the U.S. I learned from newspaper accounts that he had, within recent months, admitted on the witness stand to having made several mistakes in his analysis during a criminal trial in North Florida.

A few days later, I sat in Court to hear the testimony of this DNA expert. I was in Supreme Court Number 2, Nassau, Bahamas. The building appeared to have been constructed in the late 1800’s. The exterior had large white columns and pastel pink walls with white trim. Inside, the courtroom was large with white moldings and light green pastel colored wall panels. The jurors, all twelve and alternates, were seated on the left side, and the prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, and their assistants sat at dark wood bench style desks in the center.

The Court Clerk and his assistant sat at a desk facing the attorneys and spectators. All the lawyers wore the traditional British white wigs and black robes with white cravats. The Judge wore a more ornate crimson robe with a black vertical sash complete with white wig, was addressed as “Your Lordship,” and presided from a raised platform oak desk fifteen to twenty feet long.

The defendant sat in the “dock,” the traditional box in the center of the courtroom behind defense counsel. The various trial assistants, all wearing similar wigs and attire, sat at desks facing the judge. I noticed that the main prosecution witness, the DNA expert, who had testified numerous times in the Bahamas, turned toward the bench and bowed as he exited the courtroom after his testimony concluded.

It was interesting to hear the prosecutor continually refer to defense counsel as “My learned friend”. It was all so, shall I say “civilized.”  Aside from these trappings and unfamiliar surroundings, there was a common theme– a drama: a young man’s future at stake and another’s future lost: the 37 year old victim who was an internationally known handbag designer. It was a front-page murder case and had captured the public’s interest in Nassau, the capitol of the Bahamas.

The prosecution case was weak and, as stated, hinged solely on suspect DNA evidence. There was no other evidence to implicate our client in the murder. There were mistakes made in the analysis. The defendant, while using crutches to walk as a result of a prior basketball injury incurred weeks before the murder, was alleged to have stabbed the victim (who was his father’s business partner) 37 times. The prosecution presented the proposition that, despite his injury and the use of the crutches, defendant was still able to scale a steep set of steps inside the victim’s home to access the second floor. Our defendant was a soft-spoken, polite 23 year father of two who said he had no knowledge of the crime. Defendant’s father, the victim’s business partner, was a suspect briefly, but his DNA blood sample was excluded. Yet, nine months later, his son’s sample was taken and was matched to trace DNA evidence at the scene. If you know anything about DNA evidence, that should raise a flag in your mind.

The impeachment material that I had developed on the government expert relating to his sworn admission to making mistakes during a prior DNA analysis was heard by the jury. The Judge cut  off that line of inquiry after questioning the defense attorney about its source. He then instructed the jury to disregard that portion of the trial, stating that news media articles could not be relied upon. But the damage was done. Reasonable doubt was building, and I was becoming optimistic.

Sometimes the stars are aligned and things just seem to go in favor of your client.  I was able locate the actual biology professor who had taught the prosecutor’s DNA expert. I convinced him to become involved as our expert. Although he did not have time to review the prosecution’s forensic evidence in this case, he traveled to Nassau to testify and offered the jury a primer on DNA evidence. The relationship between the two experts was not lost on the jury

The jury began deliberations the following day. I was very hopeful that our client would be exonerated. This was a case where I really believed strongly that our client was innocent!

Not Guilty!!! I got a call from the client’s father that night. The jury was out for a little over 3 hours. This young man and his family could now get on with their lives.  If ever a case demanded a not guilty verdict, this one did.

A good lesson on a DNA case is to never accept without question the results of any DNA analysis. Scrutinize the expert, procedures, reports, bench notes, chain of custody logs and then, if you can, recruit a more qualified expert.

by Brian McGuinness, McGuinness & Associates, Miami, FL   www.fraudexaminer.com