The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

A JUDGE told the lawyer representing the officers who killed Azario Major that he was doing his clients a “disservice” by insisting the inquest finding should be quashed because the coroner did not consider his constitutional motion claiming that pretrial publicity prevented a fair inquiry.

Supreme Court Justice Franklyn Williams told the lawyer, Keevon Maynard, there was no precedent for his appeal of the Coroner’s Court inquiry.

A jury returned a homicide by manslaughter ruling in May after four officers killed Major in 2021.

At the start of the inquest, Mr Maynard filed a constitutional motion to stop the inquiry because of the pretrial publicity. Yesterday, he argued that Acting Coroner Kara Turnquest-Deveaux had no right to refuse that constitutional motion. He said the coroner should have been compelled to refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

“I believe that you are doing your clients a disservice,” the judge told him. “Now, having said that, Mr Maynard, press on if you will.”

 Justice Williams said the acting coroner was within her right not to refer his initial constitutional motion to the Supreme Court because the inquest was under way.

 “This is not a matter for mandamus,” Justice Williams said, referring to an order for a lower court to do something. “The horse has opened the gate on your case. Because what you were trying to do, which I think the coroner was quite correct in not referring your matter, what you were doing was pre-emptive. You were attempting a pre-emptive strike on what you believe to be the likely outcome of that inquest.

 “Now, I’m not saying that the outcome was correct. I’m just saying what you were doing, and as far as this court is concerned, you could not do that because it was an inquiry. It was not a trial. And it could be inferred because it was an inquiry, it could not be presumed that there was any unfairness to your clients.

 “There was no verdict. There was no evidence either of someone stating or indicating that the jurors had come to a decision or that any directions that the coroner was giving were prejudicial or unfair. Under these circumstances, you could raise the issue, but there was no evidence of that. It was an inquiry which had not heard all of the evidence being marshalled.

“And you come to this court, and you are asking for mandamus but clearly, and I don’t say this to impugn you, but clearly you don’t understand what mandamus is for. And you do not understand the role of this court in the circumstances. I’ve asked you for authority for what you’ve purported, you’ve not given any. You’re asking to set a precedent. The courts can’t do that. The court does not make law.”

 Patrick Sweeting, who marshalled evidence in the inquest, represented the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday. He moved to have Mr Maynard’s application dismissed.

 A decision on the motion is expected on October 30.

 If the judge rules against the officers, Director of Public Prosecutions Cordell Frazier is expected to consider whether to charge the officers.