US objections to depositions in Guyana without merit—lawyers

Mar 21, 2009 News

---

Attorneys for Peter Morgan yesterday filed a reply Memorandum of Law in support of his quest for depositions to be conducted in Guyana on his behalf.
The US prosecution had objected citing that Morgan had failed show unavailability or materiality through affidavits from the proposed witnesses. According to Morgan’s attorneys, the client has amply satisfied the requirements to warrant the foreign depositions adding that the prosecution’s challenge is without merit and the US Government provides neither legal nor factual support for its position.
According to the attorneys, it is not necessary for the defense to provide more information regarding the witnesses’ unavailability.
“Counsel has made good faith representations, based upon his own investigation and personal contact with the proposed witnesses, for the assertion that each of the witnesses is unavailable…Counsel has stated that all of the witnesses are beyond the court’s subpoena power and have refused to come to this jurisdiction to testify at Mr. Morgan’s trial and that two of the witnesses Vanessa Miles and Ray Urwin are also too ill to travel.”
It was pointed out that what was most striking is the US Government’s claim that none of the proposed testimony is material.
The attorneys added that in the government’s view, there is no merit to testimony that will provide an exculpatory explanation for many of the principal issues in the government’s case, including Peter Morgan’s role in exchanging Guyanese currency in the United States.
“The proposed testimony may seem irrelevant to the government, since it contradicts its theory that Peter Morgan’s money exchange business was only drug-related…But Morgan is absolutely entitled to present his defence to the jury, the government notwithstanding.”
The attorneys added that this is equally true for the testimony of Farida Kuarsingh that includes, among other things, her personal knowledge of David Narine’s drug sources.
“As the Narines are the government’s key witnesses who claim that Morgan supplied them with drugs, testimony that someone other than Peter Morgan supplied them with drugs is exculpatory…. Thus, Kuarsingh’s testimony will certainly be admitted as inconsistent with the prior Narine statements on a matter material to the case…. Yet, her information is also material to rebut the government’s case in chief.” Morgan’s attorneys are also arguing that his prospective witnesses are critical to the jury’s understanding of the currency exchange practices utilized by Guyanese businessmen.
It was pointed out that while the US Government seeks to depend on the academic and theoretical knowledge propounded by an expert (who may never have even been to Guyana, much less operated a business there), Morgan’s prospective witnesses will testify from personal experience, including, significantly, their experience dealing with Morgan’s Auto Sales. “They will demonstrate that, contrary to the government’s assertions, the types of currency and financial transactions offered in the government’s case in chief are typical of, and attributable to, regular Guyanese business activity.”
The legal team condemned as absurd, the government’s “myopic” view that Morgan must have at his disposal witnesses who are willing to come to the United States or who are located here and subject to subpoena power. “The government’s illusion about nonexistent defense witnesses do not render our prospective witnesses cumulative to the defense case…the issue in this case is not whether Peter Morgan dealt with currency traders in New York City…Of course he did. The issue for trial is: why…. This can only be answered by people with personal knowledge of his activities….
The attorneys also sought to lay to rest the US Government’s fears about safety and logistics in connection with depositions in Guyana, “The United States Embassy in Guyana is a large fortress-like building that, from a safety standpoint, is more than adequate…It should be noted that this case stands in a very different posture than (Shaheed Roger) Khan….
There are no political overtones here, unlike Khan.
US drug agents working with Trinidad authorities seized Morgan at Piarco International Airport, just days after an indictment was unsealed in a New York court charging him with three counts of drug conspiracy.
Morgan was indicted November 2006 on three counts of conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine in the US.
His capture in Port of Spain is reminiscent of that of businessman Roger Khan who is currently before a New York court on similar charges.
Khan was also arrested in Trinidad after being deported from Suriname.

---

---