The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@
tribunemedia.net

AFTER nearly six months of hearing evidence about one of the country’s most brazen daylight robberies, jurors in the John Bull Rolex Boutique robbery trial returned yesterday with their verdicts – guilty and not guilty.

The nine-member jury, after retiring twice for deliberations, finally returned to Justice Indra Charles’ courtroom at 5pm and delivered their verdicts on charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, and other charges related to the incident against Jonathan Armbrister, 35, and David Collins, 32.

Collins of Cowpen Road and Armbrister of Elizabeth Estates are accused of robbing John Bull’s Bay Street store last May of 12 watches, together worth $395,360.

During the raid, a masked man used a hammer to smash open the display cases and steal the luxury watches.

An accomplice was armed with a rifle and a third man had driven a getaway car.

A third man stood trial with the pair when the trial opened in May this year.

However, Jasper Curry was acquitted of armed robbery in August when Justice Charles directed the nine-member jury to return a 9-0 not guilty verdict against him.

Curry, who was on bail, was told by Justice Charles that he was free to go while Collins and Armbrister would still be prosecuted.

In yesterday’s proceeding, both Armbrister and Collins were found guilty on the first charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

Jurors found Armbrister guilty, 7-2, while they were split 6-3 regarding Collins.

However, on the second count (armed robbery), both Armbrister and Collins were found not guilty — 6-3 for Armbrister, 5-4 for Collins.

Collins, who was charged with receiving, (third count), was found guilty, 6-3 by the jury.

Armbrister was also found guilty of receiving (fourth count) by the jury on a count of 5-4.

Both were found not guilty of the fifth count, causing damage. Armbrister’s count was 6-3 and Collins’ 5-4.

It is not known whether the verdicts announced by the foreman at 5pm were the jurors’ original verdicts.

After completing her summation of the case, Justice Charles excused the jury at 11:30am to deliberate on the five verdicts against the accused men. Between 11:30am and 4:10pm, the time that the jury returned to court, Collins’ attorney Geoffrey Farquharson sought to make additional legal submissions before the court. This lasted an hour.

When Justice Charles called for the jury to return, they did so. She asked the foreman if they had reached a verdict. “Yes,” he said.

However, instead of asking for the verdict, the judge noted that she had to make two clarifications on the information in her summation of the evidence that she had given the jury to consider.

The two clarifications were her reference to the John Bull store being known as a reputable entity and with respect to an officer’s testimony on the confession statements of one of the accused.

Ten minutes later (4:20pm), she asked the jury to retire to the juryroom for further deliberation.

The nine jurors returned to court at 4:58pm and the foreman, when directed by the court clerk, announced the verdicts.

The verdicts caused much debate among the judge, prosecutor Sandradee Gardiner, defence counsel Farquharson and Jerone Roberts (Armbrister) – on the legal parameters of such verdicts and whether or not it was legal to have a jury go back to deliberate after they had already rendered a verdict.

When asked by Justice Charles, the foreman said that the jurors had deliberated at length, but would not be able to come up with a majority verdict.

In the end, verdicts that were found to have a count of 5-4 were not accepted because they represented a hung jury — to be valid a majority verdict of at least 6-3 was required. However, Mr Farquharson disagreed with the judge and said that that rule did not apply when the defendant was found not guilty.

With respect to the first two counts, Mr Roberts argued that the verdicts were inconsistent.

Ms Gardiner asked if the Supreme Court, rather than the Court of Appeal, was the proper forum to legally debate and decide on the issue.

Justice Charles, after discharging the jury, said that those issues would be dealt with in her courtroom at another time.

The legal officers all agreed to research the respective issues and come prepared with submissions. Justice Charles said that sentencing would occur depending on the outcome of the submissions. Those submissions will take place today at 2 pm.