Fahie’s lawyer ended call with undecided juror
New details have emerged concerning the interactions between an attorney for former Premier Andrew Fahie and a juror who changed their mind after agreeing that Fahie was guilty in his just-concluded drug and money laundering trial in Miami.
One of two jurors who disagreed with the verdict reportedly spoke with one of Fahie’s lawyers a day after the trial ended. “He told me who he was and I said I remembered him of which ,” attorney Joyce Delgado wrote in an email, pointing out that she was returning the juror’s calls left at her law office.
The unnamed juror called around 7:30 PM, roughly two hours after helping to convict Fahie of four separate counts of conspiracy to import cocaine, conspiracy to commit money laundering, attempted money laundering, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering.
According to Delgado, “He then blurted out that he wanted to know what was happening with the case because he’s worried that if all the jurors are asked to return that they will ‘never come to an agreement’ so he wants to know what the process is.”
After the verdict was delivered, a defence counsel for Fahie observed concerning behaviour from a juror, suggesting a possible lack of agreement with the verdict. Subsequently, two jurors indicated to court staff that the verdicts were not unanimous for all counts. The Court was advised that the lack of unanimity was limited to some, but not all the counts of which he had been convicted.
It is at this point that Delgado said she told the juror she didn’t know and explained that it was “inappropriate” for them to talk and hung up.
In court briefings filed by Fahie’s attorneys, it was noted that rules governing relations with a jury stipulate that a lawyer must refrain from discussing any subject with a juror connected to a case they are involved in, both before and during the trial.
Post-trial communication with jurors is permitted only with court approval, which may be granted to investigate the verdict’s legality or under specific circumstances deemed appropriate by the court.
Meanwhile, a court hearing is set for tomorrow, Tuesday, February 20, when Judge Kathleen Williams, who presided over the trial, must now decide how to resolve the unusually uncommon post-verdict problem — one that has possibly never occurred in the Southern District of Florida.
Williams is expected to call both sides into her courtroom after asking them to provide guidance on the issues.
Fahie’s sentencing is scheduled for April 29 before Judge Williams.
Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
Dem jumbies gonna have ayo hopping tomorrow
Not me! I think it’s a forgone conclusion that the verdict will stand. I believe he will likely get max 25 yrs or so (which includes the minor 10 yr offenses) and avoid a lifetime bit. Sometimes you win but still lose: a 25 yr bit in any prison is a life sentence to a 55 yr old 300lbs man. He should not have taken the bait from the Maynards after they took the bait from RS. That’s like me going pot fishing, after I get a pot fish on the line and pulling it in the wiggling fish attract and catch a wahoo. Wha who that is?
@Licher and Sticher..something to think about. i always felt the RS was the main player from day one and Fahie and the Maynards got setup by her as she is the real informant. She was just too close to the heat to have the Feds letting her off!!!!
What kind of oh beh man these people pay for buddy. He needed to do his research so he could know the a bribe in this kinda thing is effective if you give it to the jurors during the trial and not after the man/ woman say openly, I think the defendant is guilty and is then dismissed as a juror. What kind of stupid oh beh man this is buddy
“must now decide how to resolve the unusually uncommon post-verdict problem”.
Who writes this stuff? “unusually uncommon”?!
They will bring us the unfiltered truth by tomorrow evening..Can’t wait..
So post trial communication with a juror is permitted only with court approval. The juror called and left a voicemail. The lawyer (without court approval) called them back… sounds like Fahie’s lawyer was in the wrong.
Sounds like fahie’s lawyer aint gave the entire story, and that juror sounds like a plant.
really dangerous game they playing…
@Hmmm
What if he/she just left a voicemail asking for the call to be returned and did not state a name or more importantly specific info on what they were calling about? I am sure she would have returned numerous similar calls. Remember she said ‘he told me who he was’ suggesting that she did not know who she was calling,
Why would a plant call a lawyer’s office and leave voicemail?? Dat men sense ?
What about the 2nd Juror? What’s his/her story.
It make sense because they know it would be investigated/phone logs would be pulled.
If a juror has a problem, they are instructed to go to the JUDGE. The fact that that juror went straight to the defence council a day after the verdict is suspicious; it suggests communication prior to that.
If its the same juror that made noise about the trial taking to long that’s strike two
This is textbook entitled criminal behaviour. But ill let the court do the ivestigation.
@ Hmmm
So they know that phone logs will be pulled so they instruct the alleged plant to call the Lawyer’s office? Really?
If he/she was indeed a plant why did they not just vote not guilty when they were supposed to instead of going through this complicated mess of recanting their decision after the Jury was already polled?
The Juror probably felt more comfortable calling the Lawyer than the Judge? Yes they were wrong for doing that but I am yet to see how that implicates the Lawyer especially if the person just left their name and number. Now if it can be proven that the Lawyer knew who she was calling that is a different story.
Then there is the 2nd juror. Why does he/she want to recant?
We have to be very careful not to implicate the legal team here as I am sure their reputation is at stake.
Let us see what comes out in the courts today as I suspect this matter is far from over.
Fishy Fishy out of character interact
ion with a juror…verdict should remain,in my opinion.
Juror was given an opportunity to speak up when the Judged polled the jurors.
Too bad. Throws negative suspicion on Andrew et al.
Too many of you all trying to crack a case and cant fix the many personal problems you all have. Just use your time wisely and accept what is destined to be.
The fact that the juror thought about calling the defence attorney first to ask what to do tells me that this was not his first rodeo with them. Strange that the juror’s first option was not to seek advice from the judge when they could have sent a note to the judge instead. Very strange.
Through the defence’s own admission, the call did NOT take place AFTER the verdict whether two hours or one day. The juror asked “what is the process if the jurors never come to an agreement?” The lawyer told the juror “I do not know, this is inappropriate ” and hung up. This is not the kind of conversation that takes place AFTER the verdict. I do believe the defence though that there was also post trial communication. So based on their own story, there was multiple communication with the juror. The question is, why. If their duty is first to the court, why did they not inform the court at the earliest opportunity and before the verdict. That juror has no regard for the law, the sort of person that needed to be planted. They just wanted to get paid to do a job and leave quickly. They went against the plan and placed their real vote instead of their paid vote because they did not like it when the phone was hung up on them. They were looking at the defence during the verdict because they wanted to see the look of surprise in their faces when they discovered that he went against the plan. By now, we know that nothing out of Fahie’s mouth (and by extension his attorney) is the truth and he like to twist and turn story. No reason to believe any differently here. Remenber this man was allegedly in the business for over 20 years and would have established links all over the BVI, the US, Senegal) and potentially whatever other jurisdictions he would travel to. This is just another twist and turn AKA lie.
@ The defence is a liar
You have to be careful with your accusations.
. The juror asked “what is the process if the jurors never come to an agreement?”
That question could have been asked before/after trial. A call log can easily determine when the call was made?
Two Jurors want to change their verdict. So what happened to the other Juror what is his/her story?
Are you an idiot? Why would The juror ask “what is the process if the jurors never come to an agreement?” AFTER the trial?! The trial WAS over so that IS the process. The man goes to jail.
Fahie going to jail. End story.
what if ? What was ? What when ? How about what if hmmmmm say is true ? We know it you blondie , trying to defend you master again ( here’s a new name for your collection ( TONGUE FLU ) Trump can use a faithful servant like you