New filings emerge after Fahie’s post-conviction drama
The prosecution and defence teams have now filed legal briefs following the unprecedented drama that unfolded after the conviction of former Premier Andrew Fahie in Miami on drug and money laundering charges.
Fahie was found guilty on February 8 of four separate counts of conspiracy to import cocaine, conspiracy to commit money laundering, attempted money laundering, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering.
However, after the verdict was delivered, 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 he had been convicted of, but these were not specified.
The defence has since argued that the court should exercise its discretion in conducting a targeted and limited inquiry of these jurors to establish the accuracy and unanimity of the verdicts.
The defence brief cited legal precedents and rules to support their request for a further investigation into the juror’s post-verdict revelations. These emphasise the need for a unanimous verdict as a constitutional right and argue that failing to address potential discrepancies could prejudice Fahie, especially given the severe mandatory minimum sentences associated with some charges.
Fahie faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years up to life on the main cocaine-import conspiracy conviction.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity and finality of jury deliberations, referencing legal precedents and the limited scope of inquiries allowed to protect jurors’ anonymity and their deliberative processes.
The prosecution further argued that the court should not disturb the jury’s decision and suggested any further investigation should strictly adhere to verifying the accuracy of the verdict form without delving into the jurors’ deliberations.
Their position was supported by historical legal principles that safeguard the jury system from external influence and scrutiny, ensuring the continuation of a fair and impartial judicial process.
Judge Kathleen Williams is now expected to decide on the motions filed. Ultimately, the judge could let the verdicts stand or declare a mistrial, requiring Fahie to face another trial with a different jury.
Fahie’s sentencing is set 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.
Apologize to the court day of your sentencing they may give sum leniency. They doin the most now. Be a real one take the time silly. Nobody does all they time in the Feds you do abt 60%, do a program and ur fat arse got health problems… it’s programs for everything to cut ur time. He coulda stayed those 2 yrs plead guilty got the 10, do like 4 more n been back but nooooo lemme go to trial. Silly rabbit this guy.
Point of information:
There is no discount in Federal Prison. Whatever time you get, you will have to serve. This is in contrast to state prison whereby one can get discount of their time for good behavior.
What every black person should know about the U.S prison system is it’s a new form of slavery. Blacks and other minorities are more likely to get prison time than whites, more likely to get the death penalty as well.
Many of the prisons in the U.S. are ran by private companies for profit. Yes, your incarceration is making people rich.
This is true of state and county prisons and was true of federal prisons until 2021 when President Biden ordered the termination of contracts of private federal prison contracts.
Your presence in an American jail generates money for those private jailors also by prison labor.
Keep that in mind as you go about your life. It’s imperative that people first live law abiding lives and avoid this new form of slavery in the U.S.
“ Blacks and other minorities are more likely
to get prison time than whites, more likely
to get the death penalty as well”
Is that because proportionately more blacks
commit crime requiring incarceration or the
death penalty ?
Just a thought.
It’s a lie that blacks and minorities commit more crimes proportionately than whites. That’s the racist narrative that you wish to believe.
The facts are these: America is a racist country. It always has and always will be. Whites commit the majority of crimes amongst themselves and blacks commit the majority of crimes amongst themselves.
However, by every statistical measure blacks in more cases than not get harsher punishment for similar crimes.
You have bought into a Republican lie about blacks to appease your racist thoughts.
So, you are not fooling me. I know better.
American Justice system at times can have little to do with justice. I find that the best thing to do is stay very far from it.
Just a thought of a half wit
You are correct, however, race has nothing to do with this case. This case is about a man who was led by a greed for power and money when his primary concern should have been for the welfare of the people that he leads. It is not his skin colour that has landed him in prison, it is his greedy actions.
I did not say Fahie’s conviction was about race. I made a factual statement about the American criminal justice system relative to race and punishment. I was clear. Don’t attribute thoughts to me I did not state.
I live in NY, I know mad ppl in da Feds… mad programs. They def do abt 60-80% google it. Sadly ppl used to dis.
This American it’s all abt programs n appeals lol…
How can an inmate obtain early release or additional community custody time (home detention or halfway house) under the FSA?
An inmate may file a motion with the court and receive a reduced sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act provisions included in the FSA. (Please see the Fair Sentencing Act FAQ section for additional information.)
An inmate may earn time credits for completion of Evidence-Based Recidivism Reducing Programs and/or Productive Activities if they were not convicted of a non-qualifying offense. (Please see the FSA Time Credits FAQ section for additional information.)
An inmate may be approved for a compassionate release, also known as a Reduction in Sentence (RIS), based on extraordinary or compelling circumstances such as a diagnosis of a terminal illness, debilitation, or other criteria. (Please see the compassionate release FAQ section for additional information.)
An inmate may request participation in the Elderly Offender Pilot based upon their age and length of term served. (Please see the Elderly Offender Pilot FAQ section for additional information.)
These 2 Jurors Seem to be Paid Off but Couldn’t Lie Under Oath now Trying to Change Their Tune
Online 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.”
“….called to ask what was happening with the case.” This is preposterous! You just returned a guilty verdict; what do you think will be “happening” with the case! SENTENCING! Your verdict was “GUILTY”!!! Duh!
Psyop fake
they may be a mistrial on 2 counts but the other 2 will stand as uninamious and he will be still be going dow for a minimun of 10 years
When the jury (before being dismissed) voted guilty on all counts, were polled, and then afterwards voice a sentiment of changing their minds, this smells like a fix. This will not affect the sentencing in a material way, the court may say 25 yrs on the major verdict and 10 yrs min on the lesser chargers which still equates to a life sentence for a man at 55 yrs of age. Sometimes you win but you still lose
I wish this round inflated ball of waste would hush and deflate quietly in a corner away from the eyes ears and eyes of the public.
These VI have suffered enough humiliation re s ulting from his unapologetic ravenous greed.
I would be curious to know the ongoing $$$ bill of his att orney.
She deserves every dime towards contribution to Caucasian wealth, courtesy of Black idiocy.
Now if his US hideaway investments are located (unlikely)and seized, that would be icing on the cake.
You can bet that the DEA is investigating the phone records of those two jurors who suddenly changed their mind after the trial. Stupid, stupid.
That’s not for the DEA to do. Do you even know what the DEA’s job is? lmao
DEA, CIA, NSA, doesn’t matter. Those jurors just open themselves up to investigation
On conviction 85% of the term has to be served.
The Jury was polled…each juror was directly asked by the judge in the courtroom the question..do u vote guilty or innocent and was required to respond while looking/ facing the judge..then case dismissed..no tomorrow fo ah mek mind change.
This lawyer working for her million dollars fee…and doing a great job..
Jury tampering a possibility always.
The court need to carry out an investigation to ascertain the honesty and legitimacy of the claims made by the 2 Jurors the 2 Jurors are saying that they were not unanimous on some of the charges hope we get to know what are those charges in question. Fahie Attorney like she just working for the money. I can never understand why she never call RS as a defense witness, because RS has a good defense for herself…
RS is the plant that introduced the “cartel” to the Maynards. That’s why she was let go by the FEDs. The FEDs own her. So why call her to testify when she would only confirm what Maynard had to say.
Wondering if the 2 jurors are one or the same who sent note to the judge complaining about the length of the 3day old case taking tooo long and she have baby sitting expenses blah nlah..unusual behaviour for a juror who was given a choice to serve or not serve prior..retrial mongering and tampering effort of an obvious guilty verdict was my gut feel and,Interesting too, is that the makeup of the jury has never been revealed of this relatively high profiled case and the accused a foreigner.
How did the lawyer become aware? The Jury should not have been discussing it outsde the jury room. They just wasting time and money.
Two things can happned (1) up hold the jury verdict (2)declare a mistrial but on what grounds
You answered your own question: on what grounds can a mistrial happen. Seems like the defense lawyer has her work cut out for her. It doesn’t help if the dissenting jurors may have been relying on eye contact and shifting in their chair to communicate that they had an issue and then vote for a conviction. Good luck with that argument
Smells like a fix, sadly, fixed too late.
When fahie come out of jail he going be looking reallll slim and propaaa
he will leave prison alive
Why would the juror contact the defence lawyers during the deliberation and after the fact? Is this what jurors do? Why did they have the confidence or the stupidity to do so? Smells fishy.
Yall let andrew team delay the trial so long now the voodoo starting to kick up. strpz
Ta**oo and Wb aka yo killer mr n have that money. He have money to pay to kill man and pay off police he can pay for AF war cost lots of money