The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has upheld the Coroner Court's homicide by manslaughter finding in the case of Azario Major, dismissing a constitutional motion from the lawyer of the officers who killed Major outside Woody’s Bar on Fire Trial Road on December 26, 2021.

Keevon Maynard, the lawyer for Sergeant Sweeting, Inspector Saunders, Sergeant Johnson and Corporal Rolle, filed a constitutional motion to stay the matter on May 10, 2023, before jurors returned a manslaughter finding on May 25, 2023.

Mr Maynard moved to overturn the finding, citing pretrial publicity that he believes adversely affected his clients.

However, Justice Franklyn Williams delivered his written decision on Sunday, noting that the officers have not faced criminal charges.

He wrote: “At the time of the convening of the inquest, the applicants had not been charged with a criminal offence. A coroner’s inquest is not concerned with criminality, though the issue of criminality may be considered as a result of a finding thereof. The applicants are not now charged. There is not now, nor has there been any indication that the applicants are likely to be charged with a criminal offence.”

Although the judge acknowledged that pretrial publicity may have affected jurors' findings, he said this submission did not affect this matter. He stressed that Mr Maynard should have relied on a constitutional motion as an act of last resort and that he had other avenues to protect his clients' interests.

“I take judicial notice of the fact that there has been and continues during the pendency of this action to be much publicity around the death of the subject of the inquest," Justice Williams wrote.

“This publicity consists of social media postings, commentary, and interviews and even a website and podcast with hundreds of thousands of views seemingly established solely for this purpose, and has been facilitated by digital, print and broadcast media. Several persons interviewed have repeatedly and explicitly called for the indictment of the applicants and continue to do so. The resulting decision may very well have been influenced by that publicity; that, however, is not a matter for consideration here.

“The issue here is not that of control of administrative action, but that of a decision rendered as a result of the proceedings of a coroner’s inquest lawfully convened. The remedy of constitutional relief is one of last resort. Applicants seeking constitutional relief must exhaust all other remedies. To be certain, there is no question of the breach of any fundamental or constitutional right here. The applicants were not charged, are not charged and as of this moment, no indication will be charged with a criminal offence.”

With the appeal matter now settled, acting Director of Public Prosecutions Cordell Fraizer will be expected to finish reviewing the case to decide if charges should be brought against the officers.