The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Staff Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

JURORS heard closing arguments from both sides in the trial of a woman accused of murdering her Defence Force marine husband.

Supreme Court Justice Vera Watkins will deliver her summation to the jury today.
Yesterday, defence attorney Moses Bain concluded that the prosecution had not successfully proven that accused Mikiko Black had murderous intent in connection with the fatal shooting of Leonardo Black.

The 25-year-old defendant has denied the murder charge she faces and has maintained that her actions on the night of April 19, 2010 were in self-defence.

Police found the body of the 27-year-old marine with gunshot wounds to the left side of the face.

The accused was arraigned four days after the incident before Chief Magistrate Roger Gomez.

She was not required to enter a plea to the charge.

Black said on the day in question, she and her husband got into an argument that turned physical. The accused also said that the marine threatened to leave her, driving away from their Boil Fish Drive and Adderley Terrace apartment before returning moments later for his clothes. While in the living room, both Blacks reached for the weapon on the stand, the accused said, and she only recalled a shot going off and then her husband falling to the floor.

In yesterday’s proceedings, prosecutor Anthony Delaney asked jurors to imagine an alternative scenario, one that he said is more in line with testimony from the forensic pathologist and firearms examiner.

Mr Delaney said: “Imagine you are at home, just had an argument with your spouse. You go out, come back, take a seat and watch TV to cool off. As you’re watching, your spouse comes up from behind and a load is discharged at you.”

While prosecution witnesses could not confirm the exact location of Black and her husband at the time of the incident, Mr Delaney said forensic evidence confirmed that the recipient was below the nozzle of the shotgun and within a foot of the weapon.

Mr Delaney said Black’s actions immediately following the incident also did not add up to her claim of self-defence.

He said that she spoke on the phone with her mother for 10-15 minutes before she ran outside screaming.

In his closing argument, Mr Bain pointed to the lack of results from testing done on clothing, items found in the home, and the Defence Force officer’s blood and bodily fluids.

He claimed that the results would have benefited the accused, who he said was the sole eyewitness and only consistent witness in the case.

Black testified that before the April 19, 2010 incident, she and her husband had been evicted from three apartments because of the domestic disputes and fights between them.

Before closing its case, the defence presented police records which indicated Black filed a complaint in 2007 and again in 2008 that she was beaten by her then boyfriend.

Mr Delaney countered that there were no witnesses to any of the incidents, and added that there was only a formal record of three incidents in the couple’s five-year relationship.

He added that the results of any tests would not have determined whether or not Black acted in self-defence.

In considering a self-defence claim, Mr Delaney asked jurors to determine whether or not the amount of force used was reasonable. He added that if not, the act was murder.