Ricardo De Four

Russell “Saucy” Joseph told a Washington, DC, jury that soon after he was arrested for the killing of Balram “Balo” Maharaj, he gave the Trinidad police the name, Ricardo Stevenson, as the soldier involved in the crime. Days later, he changed his story and said it was Ricardo De Four. He admitted, under cross-examination, that he had lied on an innocent man.

He did that because he wanted to save his own skin. When he was charged, he said he was placed in the same prison with the other defendants, and he was fearful for his own life. Like Jason Percival, Joseph spent a considerable time in the witness box. Described as a co-conspirator, Joseph said he pleaded guilty to hostage-taking, and entered into an agreement with the US. If he failed to honour that agreement, and lied, he would be sentenced to the mandatory life imprisonment.

Following is the final part of Joseph’s evidence-in-chief. His answers were in response to questions from assistant US attorney, Bruce Hegyi.
Q: Were you interviewed in Trinidad and Tobago in or about February of 2006 by members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A: Yes, I have.
Did they advise you of your constitutional rights?
Yes, sir; they did.
Did you elect to waive those rights?
Yes, sir.
Did you speak with the agents of the FBI, submit to an interview?
Yes, I did.
Were any promises made to you?
No, sir.
Any threats made to you?
No, sir.
Then were you, subsequently, indicted here in the United States of America?
Yes; I have been.
Did you waive extradition or fight extradition to the United States?
I waived.
Did you, subsequently, enter into a plea agreement with the United States of America?
Yes, sir; I did.
Mr Joseph, did you, in fact, plead guilty to both Count 1 and Count 2 of the superseding indictment against you?
Yes, sir; I did.
“Mr Joseph fully and completely understands that the final determination of his sentence will be made by the court.”
Yes, sir.
Is that your understanding?
Yes; it is.
In your agreement, where it says “Co-operation with the United States,” it says “Mr Joseph agrees to cooperate completely, candidly, and truthfully with all investigators and attorneys of the United States. Specifically, your client agrees:” Have I read that correctly, so far?
Yes, sir.
It says you must “testify fully and truthfully before any grand jury in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, and at all trials, cases, and in any other court proceedings in the District of Columbia or elsewhere at which your client's testimony may be deemed relevant by the United States.” Did I read that correctly?
Yes, sir.
Is that your understanding?
Yes, sir.
“Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to permit Mr Joseph to commit perjury, to make any false statements or declarations, to obstruct justice, or protect him from prosecution for any crimes not included within this agreement or committed by him after the execution of this agreement. Mr Joseph understands and agrees that the United States reserves the right to prosecute him for any such offences. Mr Joseph further understands that any perjury, false statements or declarations or obstruction of justice relating to his obligations under this agreement shall constitute a breach of this agreement.” Did I read that correctly?
Yes, sir.
Is that your understanding?
Yes; it is.
And then it goes on to say: “However, in the event of such a breach, Mr Joseph will not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.¸” Did I read that correctly?
That's correct.
“Similarly, this agreement does not bind any foreign government.” Did I read that correctly?
That’s correct.
Mr Joseph, what are you required to do under this agreement?
Tell the truth.
And what happens if you don't tell the truth?
I'll be in prison for life.
Cross-examined by Jonathan Zucker, attorney for Ricardo de Four.
Q: I represent Ricardo de Four. The courtesy you extended to him, to leave the soldiers out of it. Correct?
A: Yes, sir.
And the only soldier from Trinidad and Tobago armed forces in this courtroom is Ricardo de Four. Isn't that correct?
That's correct.
So you left him out. Right? Because he was a soldier. Right?
Yes, sir.
And you were going to leave all other soldiers out as well?
Yes, sir.
Because Roderick Gibbs asked you to. Right?
Yes, sir.
What did you owe Roderick Gibbs because you were doing him this favour?
I didn't owe him anything.
It was just a courtesy among friends?
I was doing what I was told.
By him?
Yes, sir.
You accused someone else; now you're saying my client did. Right? Driving the lead car. Right?
No, sir.
You didn't accuse someone else?
I can't recall right now.
You can't recall what you said? When is the last time you looked at your statement from Trinidad and Tobago from January 17th? It was within the last week, isn't it, sir?
Yeah, yeah! I think it was Friday.
Friday. Four days ago; three days ago?
Yes, sir.
Who did you look at it with?
The investigators.
Which investigators? The FBI agents?
Yes, sir.
Mr Cruz?
No, sir.
Another FBI agent?
Yes, sir.
After you began your testimony on Friday, or before?
Before.
Before. Okay! When was the last time you had seen it before then?
I can't recall.
And you can't recall who you put in there, who you accused, even though you looked at it Friday, huh?
There's a name in my head, but I'm not sure if it's right. I think it was Stevo.
Stevo?
Yes, sir.
Who is Stevo?
He's also a soldier
So he's also a soldier. Right?
Yes, sir.
Well, I thought you told us this morning you left all the soldiers out because Roderick Gibbs told you to. Right?
Yes, sir.
And then you substituted another soldier in his place. Right?
Yes, I did.
So did you lie to us this morning about why you left Mr de Four out?
No, sir.
Well, why did you put another soldier in his place?
Stevo was still in custody, and I just needed to put someone there.
Stevenson was in custody. You needed to put someone there, so you accused an innocent man in a capital offence. Right?
Fair to say.
Fair to say?
Yes, sir.
That's what you were willing to do to help yourself out. Right? Accuse an innocent person in a capital offence if it would help get you some leniency from the prosecution. Right? Isn't that what you just told us you did, sir? Right?
Yes, sir; I was trying to save myself.
So in order to save yourself, you accused an innocent man?
Yes, sir.
That's who you are, isn't it, sir?
That's who I am?
That's who you are: Somebody who is willing to accuse an innocent man to try and save yourself. Right?
No, sir.
So this stuff about de Four out because he was a soldier, and Gibbs told you to leave all the soldiers out, that's all nonsense. Right? Because you put a soldier in there.
No, he did told me.
He did tell you?
To leave them out.
Did you tell them that before May of 2009?
Yes; I did.
When?
I had an interview with the FBI at the Barataria police station.
And that was back on February 20, 2005. Right?
That's correct.
And you told the FBI that in that meeting, that Roderick Gibbs told you to lie?
Yes, sir.
Are you sure?
Yes, sir.
Who did you meet with?
Same agents.
Well, one of them was Agent Cruz, who is here in the courtroom. Right?
Yes, sir.
And the other one was Agent Clauss. Right?
Yes, sir.
Would it surprise you to find out that's not in any of their reports?
This story you told this morning about my client—I represent de Four—coming over to threaten you when you said let me back up a second. You said at one point you wanted to get out of the kidnapping. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And when you said you wanted to get out, you accused my client of coming over and threatening you. Right? De Four?
I never said he threatened me. I never used that term.
Okay! He showed up with some other guys who were armed with their military weapons?
Yes, sir.
And he told you you had to keep going. Right?
Yes, sir.
So that wasn't a threat to you?
It wasn't a threat; it was intimidating.
So he intimidated you?
Yes.
And that occurred in 2005?
Yes, sir.
And you've been co-operating since February, 2006. Right? Wasn't too long ago. It was about two weeks ago. Right?
That's correct.
May of 2009?
Yes.
May 13th, 2009, about two weeks ago. Right?
Yes, sir.
A few days before the trial started. Right?
Yes, sir.
How come you held that back from law enforcement for three years?
Because everything I couldn't remember what happened at the same time. Things come to you after.
Before we started this trial, that my client supposedly intimidated you. Right?
I have, sir.
You just thought you would leave it out?
Yes.
Were you trying to protect him?
No.
Well, then, why did you leave it out?
I don't know.
What caused you to suddenly remember it?
I had a lot of time to think.
Uh-huh. Well, you had three years, but it took you from February of 2006 to May of 2009. You didn't remember it for over three years. And just as you're about to begin trial, you start saying: Oh, actually, the only reason I participated in this kidnapping was because I was intimidated. Right?
Yes, sir.
You weren't trying to get the FBI to go easier on you?
No, sir.
You weren't trying to explain?
Yes, sir.
Now, on January 17th, 2006, when you came forward, it was after Balo's body had been discovered. Right?
Yes, that's correct.
And there was a lot of press about that?
Yes, sir.
And you had a cousin in the police department, in the anti-crime unit; didn't you?
No, sir.
Well, didn't you tell what unit was he in, or she?
That was Roderick Gibbs. I was together with his cousin.
So you had inside information from the police that you were about to be charged. Right?
That's correct.
And so you figured you would rather get ahead of this, get in front of it. Right? Do you know what I mean by that?
He told me it was best if I go in and talk to the police.