Judge: No more delays in CMU trial

Former Caribbean Maritime University President, Professor Fritz Pinnock, was yesterday told that he will have to conduct his own cross-examination of witnesses if his attorney, Hugh Wildman, remains absent from the corruption trial.

“I am expecting someone will be here to give you some assistance and be prepared to write or type and prepare cross-examination,” the judge told Pinnock ahead of the multimillion-dollar fraud trial’s resumption on Monday.

Senior Parish Judge Sanchia Burrell gave the directive in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court after being told that Wildman would be absent following the death of his mother. The attorney had sent a message noting that he would send someone but did not say when he would be present.

The judge, while stressing that the canons require attorneys to act in the best interests of their clients, made it clear that the proceedings would not be further stalled because of Wildman’s absence.

The judge’s warning came after attorney Carolyn Chuck delivered Wildman’s message and indicated that someone would “hold” for him.

She said Wildman had also proposed that witnesses give their evidence and be recalled later for him to conduct their cross-examination.

However, Burrell rejected that arrangement.

“That’s not how holding works,” she said.

She cautioned that Wildman’s approach could cause the trial to take at least twice as long, given the frequent adjournments and suggested recall of witnesses.

The judge said the issue had to be considered against the background of witnesses who were anxious to complete their evidence.

Lead prosecutor Ashtelle Steele also objected to the proposed arrangement, arguing that the Crown could not conduct examinations-in-chief and then have cross-examinations done piecemeal.

“It can’t be a case [that] we are going to do the examinations-in-chief for all the witnesses and piecemeal cross-examination, and some of the witnesses are coming from out of the jurisdiction,” Steele said.

“That is not happening. That is not what justice looks like,” Burrell responded.

The judge also questioned how the rights of the other accused could continually be affected by Wildman’s absence.

“How can the rights of four other people be expected continuously to yield to Mr Wildman’s failure to balance himself in such a way?” she asked.

PROPER ARRANGEMENTS

Burrell said she did not lack sympathy for Wildman’s loss, but questioned whether proper arrangements had been made for the trial if he had already secured time off from the Supreme Court.

“I am not saying I don’t have any sympathy towards his mother,” she said.

“But if he is saying he got time off from Supreme Court, then he had no plan to be here, which means he ought to have made proper arrangements.”

The judge further warned attorneys against taking on more work than their chambers could adequately support.

“Firms should only take on workload that their chamber can support,” she said, noting that Wildman was appearing in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Parish Court.

“It can’t be that this court have to pause and do gymnastics and contortion around his diary. No, it is not happening,” Burrell said, noting that a law firm must be adequately manned to manage its workload.

She also criticised the manner in which arrangements concerning Wildman’s absence had been communicated to the court, describing them as “disjointed”, “vague”, “piecemeal” and “unhelpful at best”.

Although no one had appeared to hold for Wildman, the judge insisted that the trial would proceed and that the witness would start her evidence.

“I have heard nothing plausible why we must not continue.”

The court then continued with the evidence from the principal of a St Ann community college.

The principal testified that the college had not partnered with CMU, a businessman or Optimum Customer Service Consultancy to offer a customer engagement operations programme between 2017 and 2019.

She also said the college did not engage the businessman, Optimum or the accused Kim Brown Lawrence to provide meals for students enrolled in the programme.

During cross-examination, Brown Lawrence’s attorney, Oswest Senior-Smith, asked whether the witness had formed an impression that the councillor had presented herself as a supplier of food to the college.

The prosecution objected, arguing that the question called for speculation and that no evidence had been led suggesting Brown Lawrence had said she was a supplier.

However, Senior-Smith argued that the question arose from the series of earlier questions about whether Brown Lawrence had been engaged by the college to provide meals to students.

Burrell allowed the question as it related to the witness’s impression, but cautioned Senior-Smith to exercise care.

The witness replied that she had not formed such an impression.

Senior-Smith also asked whether the witness knew of Brown Lawrence and her husband operating a restaurant at Brown’s Plaza in Brown’s Town. She said she did not.

The witness also said she could not confirm whether Brown Lawrence had used the college premises for a Jamaica Labour Party divisional conference in April 2017.

Reid, his wife Sharen, their daughter Sharelle, Pinnock and Brown Lawrence are on trial on multiple offences arising from allegations that more than $25 million in public funds were siphoned through fake jobs, sham contracts, and bogus invoices between 2016 and 2019.

The trial continues on Monday.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com