US prosecutors wants to block Fahie’s ‘entrapment defence’
Prosecutors in the trial for former premier Andrew Fahie are anticipating that he will invoke an entrapment defence and have filed a motion to block that legal strategy.
Effectively, the entrapment defence is used when an accused person claims they never would have committed a crime if a law enforcement officer\s had not induced, incited, persuaded and\or lured them into doing so.
Several motions were filed before Justice Kathleen Williams on Tuesday, December 19, to prevent Fahie and his attorney, Theresa Van Vliet, from using various defences such as entrapment and introducing hearsay as evidence in the trial.
Fahie’s trial begins on January 8, 2024, where he will face charges of drug smuggling, money laundering, and racketeering.
The charges allege that the former Premier was deeply involved in an elaborate drug and money laundering scheme set up to make the BVI a thoroughfare for tonnes of cocaine shipments.
He is facing possible life imprisonment if convicted on the charges brought against him by the United States government.
That prosecution further contends that the entrapment defence that Fahie may use also hinges on proving both governmental inducement and the lack of predisposition on Fahie’s part to commit the alleged crime.
Notably, the burden rests on Fahie and his defence team to present evidence of coercion or persuasion by law enforcement.
The prosecution indicated that the large volume of evidence — comprising recorded conversations, WhatsApp messages, and testimony from an intermediary, who is his former co-accused, Oleanvine Pickering Maynard — overwhelmingly establishes Fahie’s active participation in the alleged scheme even before any contact with US government agents.
Maynard has since pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy in the scheme and is expected to serve as the Prosecution’s key witness once the trial gets underway.
The Prosecution attached particular significance to a conversation in which the intermediary reported Fahie’s keen interest in the plan, seeking $500,000 for support and providing coded language to evade detection.
Prosecutors argued that this pre-existing involvement rules out any claim of inducement Fahie may raise at trial.
Moreover, prosecutors highlighted Fahie’s continued engagement in the alleged conspiracy after meeting the government’s confidential source — an individual whose identity the defence has made repeated efforts to uncover through motions brought before the court.
According to prosecutors, Fahie allegedly orchestrated a meeting in which details of the illicit plan were discussed; showcasing a level of control inconsistent with likely claims of inducement.
The government asserts that, during subsequent interactions, Fahie exercised authority over logistical aspects, including meeting locations and transportation arrangements.
Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
Anyone catching fish on Homs and in fish pits should put them back. How stupid can one get.
He pulled his calculator and if this was enticing to him I don’t want to even imagine.
Bye bye
IMO, Mr. Fahie is entitled to defend himself against all accusations. (No personal feelings involved here.)
The prosecution has brought these charges, and they should be prepared to prove them at trial not thru pre-trial motions whereby they want to cut of the defendants defense before he even gets to trial.
What the prosecution is trying to do here is essentially deny Mr. Fahie his ability to defend himself, and I doubt the judge overseeing this case will allow this because to grant such motions could create an appealable guilty verdict.
They judge can always limit certain testimony during trial, but to outright deny an accused defense thru pre-trial motions is a dirty move by the prosecution.
Normally if someone is accused and charged with a crime, they go to court and defend themselves. The prosecution presents their case and evidence, and the defendant (defense) rebuts it before a jury/judge. After hearing all the evidence from both sides, the jury makes a decision.
Now, it is possible these two things can be true:
a) Mr. Fahie was engaged in conversations and planning of illicit activities prior to the government contact (which needs to be proven), and
b) He was entrapped by the U.S. DEA (my belief) knowingly with the cooperation of the U.K.
The former Ports Director and her son’s testimony needs to be crossed examined on the stand, so their word may not amount to what the prosecution is stating.
One has to remember they have deals with the prosecution, and are testifying in their own interest. In order words they have thrown Mr. Fahie under the bus to save their own skins from long prison terms because they all found themselves in this very bad satiation, probably without money to hire a good lawyer to defend them.
Note that since the trio was arrested in Miami, both the former ports director and her son remained in jail. They were never able to post bail and had little choice other than to cooperate with the prosecution.
Bottom line. I am highly doubtful the judge will grant these motions in full although he/she may disallow certain line of testimony during trial.
You cannot accuse a person of a crime in my view, and deny that person the ability to tell their side of the story. Prove your case in court before jurors, allow the defendant to defend against it, and let the jury come to a rightful decision.
It was entrapment but it is his own fault for being greedy and corrupt.
How cam this be entrapment based on his staunch religious beliefs? This crooked Humty Dumpty was just full of greed and he better not let that wall fall on him, for he will be crushed to smitherines.
If the prosecution is so confident in their case why try to block this? Can they even do this legally before the trial starts? The Prosecution and Defense both put forward cases and the most persuasive usually wins!
In a county characterized by a populace predisposed to extending sympathy, or at the very least, maintaining impartiality toward an entrapment defense, I am sure the prosecution has concerns. This is or will be a jury trial and the burden rest on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.So any hint of a possibility of entrapment might sway a juror.
entrapment or not andrew was crooked to even think about taking that deal
The US Authorities have a long history of using entrapment aka Government inducement of the crime so this revelation is nothing new. They get away with it because the US Justice System allows them to. No doubt greed played a major role but entrapment likely did as well. If the Prosecution had a strong case they would not have a problem with Foy using entrapment.
it is very interesting indeed / U SHOULD OF BEEN AN ATTORNEY ( 4 YOSELF ) WE BIG UP THE PREMIER FOR SEEING THROUGH YOUR DISGUISE AND DROP KICKED U AND YOUR WIG OUT OF THE HONORABLE – HOA . ( you were and still acting like a TYRANT ) . you need to stay on your yellow , where U rule Supreme
@@Interesting. I am not Mr. W. I’m a free thinking person with my own opinions and thoughts. Please stop blaming or attributing post to the man which he is not responsible for.
Whatever ill thoughts people may have of him and his new site,I share no similar thoughts
I’ve noticed many of my posts are recently being attributed to him. That assumption is wrong.
It seems when you read these blogs there are plenty of people that want Andrew Fahie to be free even if he is guilty. This seems to apply to other proven criminals. Why is that so? Why do so many want criminals free in the VI. Of course on AF we still need to see if he guilty or not.
@BuzzBVI. That’s your assumption. People can express their thoughts on the legal matter as they see it without believing that the person is guilty or innocent.
I certainly do this in my case. Call it the way I see it. His guilt or innocence is not up to me; it’s up to the jurors. I benefit nothing from either one. I share none of his burden.
I think it is fair to say however, that there may be some people whose posts are biased in one direction or the other, and that’s ok. People are entitled to their opinions whatever they are.
Very
Interesting.
I don’t disagree with anything you say but I do wonder if the development and encouragement of a society that actively wants criminals living amongst them is a little odd. That is why I posed the questions. People may be entitled to their opinions, and I am entitled to have people think about those opinions. Many people live here that want to live a life that does not promote criminality and accept it, and they have a right to their opinions also. But, they may have more than that. They may have morality on their side. A useful thing to have in a Christian Society which I understand these VI’s profess to be. I will ask my question again. Why do so many want criminals free in the VI?
@ Buzz BVI…..
Because they are benefitting.
Why do you think they vote the way they do? It is not about country, it is about themself. What can I get, what is in it for me. You realise that persons have no issue with the way $40M was taken from SS and distributed even though no one can provide any concrete evidence of it actually benefitting the country. How better off is the fishing industry? How better off is the farming industry?
You had persons making +$9k per month receiving out of this grant and persons saw nothing wrong with that. Yet the man making $2k per month is deemed jealous if he speaks out on this. This is how these defenders think.
Once you understand that you will have your answer.
Well said
Hw was the king pin. The Don. He is being in control. No one induce him or convince him. This is all him..Yep.
Its a matter of truth.
If they didnt entrap him & willfully go out to do a political assassination based on him fighting the system aka the UK governor, then prove it.