Jenifer O’Neal requests new trial after conviction

Former USVI Office of Management and Budget Director Jenifer O’Neal has asked the court to vacate her conviction or, failing that, grant her a new trial, arguing that prosecutors failed to prove criminal intent and relied on evidence that unfairly linked her to the actions of others.

According to the VI Consortium, O’Neal’s attorney contends in a post-verdict motion filed on December 24 that the government’s case did not meet the legal threshold required for conviction. The filing states that “the government’s evidence presented at trial is insufficient to establish the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt,” her counsel wrote.

O’Neal was convicted alongside former Virgin Islands Police Department Commissioner Ray Martinez on charges including fraud and bribery. The motion argues that prosecutors failed to prove she possessed the required criminal state of mind, particularly in relation to a security deposit paid on her behalf for a coffee shop venture.

According to the filing, O’Neal believed the funds used for the deposit came solely from Martinez. Her attorney maintains that both Martinez and David Whitaker, described in court as a fraudster-turned-government witness, told O’Neal that the money originated with Martinez. The motion says the “undisputed evidence” showed she was never informed of any wider conspiracy involving Martinez, adding that she was not “made aware by anyone that Martinez was involved in a conspiracy,” the filing stated.

Bribery allegations contested

The defence also challenges the bribery allegations, pointing to testimony from Whitaker that he adjusted an invoice upward on his own initiative. Counsel argues this action was “insufficient to prove the exchange of something of value for an official act or the quid pro quo essential elements,” as required under the law.

Beyond the evidence presented at trial, O’Neal’s attorney is asking the court to scrutinise the grand jury process that led to the indictment. The motion alleges possible misconduct, including the use of leading questions, and suggests that, if confirmed, this may warrant dismissal of the charges.

A central argument in the filing is that O’Neal was unfairly prejudiced by being tried alongside Martinez. Her lawyer claims she was “unduly prejudiced by the overwhelming evidence of a long-running and unrelated conspiracy between Whitaker and Martinez of which she was never made aware,” and that this deprived her of “her constitutional right to a fair trial,” the motion stated.

The court has yet to rule on the request. During earlier proceedings, O’Neal’s attorney did not seek to sever her case from Martinez’s, a factor the court may now consider as it weighs the bid for acquittal or a new trial.