DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS TOO EARLY

Aug 01, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Guyanese must be careful how they treat the so-called “explosive” revelations emanating from the Robert Simels trial, because premature conclusions can end up blowing up in their faces. The media also has an obligation to advise their readership and viewership about not rushing to conclusions over what is being reported before all the evidence has been led and the various witnesses have been cross-examined.
During the Esther Pereira elections petition case, Desmond Hoyte, a Senior Counsel, sought to swing public opinion in favour of his party by making premature pronouncements on selected evidence before awaiting the conclusion of the trial.
More importantly, there was the response of other witnesses who could have contradicted the initial evidence which was led. He sought to impute that the elections was riddled with irregularities even before it was determined whether those alleged irregularities impacted on the eventual outcome of the elections.
As a lawyer, this was conduct unbecoming and he was rightly censured by some other lawyers involved in the case.
The public must be careful not to jump to conclusions so early in the Simels trial. They must be advised that what we have so far is someone who has entered into a deal with the prosecution and whose credibility will be subject to scrutiny when the defense attorneys get a chance to cross examine his evidence.
As part of the cross examination process, defense attorneys look for contradictions while the prosecution will attempt later to negate any subsequent contradictions. Some contradictions have already emerged, based on what has been reported in the media. But equally, a definitive opinion should not be formed until this process is complete.
It is disappointing that the Alliance For Change seems to have made up its mind based on just the evidence of the first witness. This is highly unfortunate considering that political party has some very good lawyers within its ranks.
The public must not be unduly influenced by any premature opinion rendered. One can hardly avoid the comments of others on these revelations so far. The public has to however judge, not just what is being said but to examine the possible motive behind any opinion rendered early in the case.
The public must be further advised that what we have so far is untested evidence and thus it is too premature to arrive at conclusions. Whatever a witness says on the stand or in statements is subject to cross examination and it is better for the public to wait not just on this process but to examine the evidence in totality.
Juries are always, in fact advised, not to arrive at any conclusions about the guilt of the accused before they have heard all the evidence. The public in Guyana must also be aware that it is not Roger Khan who is on trial. It is his former lawyer and his associate who are before the courts for alleged witness tampering.
Some persons have questioned what the present evidence which has been led has to do with the Simels trial. What the prosecution is seeking to establish is motive. They are seeking to paint a scenario in which Khan may have had reason to seek to tamper with witnesses since the witness may have had incriminating evidence against Khan and others.
Thus, they are proceeding on the basis that Khan’s attorneys were acting on his behalf in attempting to tamper with witnesses by forcing them to change their statements to the federal authorities.
Khan is not however on trial here. He has reportedly entered into a plea bargain with the State which will come up for hearing in September. The judge there will have to determine whether she will go along with the plea agreement.
As the trial proceeds more and more revelations will be made. But how much of this will be received by the public depends on the reporting. Certainly, given the local public interest in the trial, the local newspapers should be careful in ensuring that they get the full details of every witness on the stand as well as the full details of the cross examination.
This would be the responsible thing to do, given the implications for Guyana. The duty of the media is to be fair and accurate and in this instance responsibility would be better served if the coverage is comprehensive rather than selective.
It is indeed an expensive proposition for the local newspapers to send their own reporters to cover the trial which will likely go on for months. In these situations, they normally depend on reports by other correspondents or from stringers.  So the public must be aware as well about the limitations of the media in covering this trial.

---

---