Now his legal team has a tough job ahead. Six attorneys appeared in court today, and Lisa Shoman was the point person for the media.
Lisa Shoman, Attorney for Said Musa
“The Magistrate has been very clear that he needs to make no determination now about the quality of the evidence. He is simply talking about the quantity and to his mind, the reasons he has given, he thinks that he sees enough quantity. We are saying that the quantity is not there and that the quality is not there. But the issue of quality is obviously something that we will address at another time.”
Jules Vasquez,
Are there any intercessional manoeuvres which you all can make between now and the next session of the Supreme Court to avert it going to a jury?
Lisa Shoman,
“I don’t think we’re talking about averting anything Jules. What we are talking about is obviously to take all legal steps that are open
and available to Mr. Musa. We are going to be considering those very carefully. I think with all fairness to the Magistrate’s ruling, we will be requesting those in writing and look at them before we decide what are the next steps to be taken.”
Jules Vasquez,
Are you concerned that Mr. Musa cannot get a fair trial before a jury in Belize?
Lisa Shoman,
“I think that remains to be seen. I believe that Belizeans are very fair minded people and I think a lot is going to depend not only on the jury pool but where this trial takes place and the conditions under which it takes place.”
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt, DPP
“It is no surprise to me. I said on the last occasion that I would have been surprised if the Magistrate had failed to commit the accused to stand trial.”
Marion Ali, News 5
“What do you think was the determining factor in this ruling?”
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“The fact that we had evidence to support all the elements of the offense of course.”
Jules Vasquez,
Mr. Musa will be made to stand trial in the Supreme Court before a jury. Is it your feeling that he is able to get a fair trial before a jury given all that has been said about this trial and about his conduct?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“Of course it is possible for him to get a fair trial.”
Jules Vasquez,
You feel you’ll have an advantage before a jury, being that Mr. Musa has been a very defamed politician?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“If I have any advantage it will be because the law and the facts
will be on my side.”
Jules Vasquez,
Do you feel that the Executive’s in this case, given that one of the statements is from the Prime Minister, that the Executive’s interest in this case had any effect at all on the outcome here today?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“I would have to say no because from my point of view, the law clearly sets out what theft is and the evidence that we presented to the court went in support of what the law is saying constitutes that offense. So clearly based on that, the Magistrate was compelled to rule as he did.”
Jules Vasquez,
The ability to bring forth a prima facie case at Magistrate’s Court requires a much lower standard of proof than it would be at the Supreme Court. The burden of proof is upon you. Do you have enough to prove that Mr. Musa was guilty of theft?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“When a decision is being made to arrest and charge someone, the decision is not based on whether or not you would have sufficient evidence for preliminary inquiry. The decision is based on whether or not you have sufficient evidence to put before a jury so that a jury will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and that was the test and I think that the evidence satisfied the test and that is why the charges were brought.”
Jules Vasquez,
We saw nine attorneys in court previously, six today, are you, and I know I’ve asked this in many ways, but I’m saying obviously the efficiency that those attorneys brought will now be even more enhanced with I guess a sort of desperation at the Supreme Court level because it is before a jury. They will bring more. Will you be the only one prosecuting?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“Yes I will.”
Jules Vasquez,
Are you concerned about the inequity between the force on both side?
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“I don’t know what inequity you’re speaking about Jules.”
Jules Vasquez,
They will have more legal acumen on their side.
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“Really?”
Jules Vasquez,
Well in a collective sense.
Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt,
“Oh, I disagree with you totally.”
And so how does all this bode for the decision on the Ralph Fonseca preliminary inquiry which is due on March third? Seems not to bode in his favour but neither side wanted to speculate. Branker Taitt just said she remains confident that he will also be committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court. And what options are open to the Musa defence team – before it goes to the Supreme Court? Well, they could seek judicial review of Magistrate Jones’s decision at the Supreme Court. It’s left to be seen if that avenue will be pursued.
