Couple freed of murder:

Judge bans jury for 15 years

Published: 30 Jan 2010

Tricia Flemming...freed

Justice Herbert Volney was so infuriated with two ‘not guilty’ verdicts in a murder case yesterday, that he immediately banned the 12-member jury from sitting for the next 15 years. Volney, presiding in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court, said he disagreed with the verdicts of the jury. “This is a travesty of justice,” Volney said. He then made an order that the names of the 12 jurors be struck off from the rolls of the jury list for the next 15 years. The jurors sat in their chairs and looked at the judge, two of them breaking out in a smile when they heard that they would not have to sit for the next 15 years. The jury retired to consider their verdict just after midday.

But after the mandatory three hours in the jury room, the panel was never brought back to court as is the norm. They were kept in the jury room for four hours and 20 minutes before the foreman indicated to the marshall on duty that they were ready with an unanimous verdict. Tricia Flemming, 23, of St Joseph Street, Foster Road, Sangre Grande, and Sheldon Mohammed, 25, of Bonzai Circular, Durante Gardens, were freed of the murder of Richard ‘Sunil’ Sooden, 20, of Greenidge Street, Sangre Grande. State attorney Tricia Hudlin-Cooper prosecuted. Michelle Solomon represented Mohammed, while Ulric Skerritt appeared for Flemming.

According to the State’s case, around 5.30 pm on September 1, 2005, Flemming and Mohammed went to the home of Soodeen’s parents, Juliet and Ashook Lall, and asked to speak with him. Juliet Lall said she had known Flemming since she was a child. “Tricia told my husband and I that Sunil was telling lies, so she smashed his windscreen. Sunil was washing his van at the time. I called him to hear what Tricia was saying. “In Tricia’s presence, Sunil told us that she had placed a knife to his neck, and asked him for $100.” He said he told her he did not have that kind of money. He said after he refused to give her the cash, she busted his windscreen.

Article Tools
Comments: 6
 

Either agree with the judge

Either agree with the judge or go home and doh come back!

Rudy Chato Paul, Sr. Hmm,

Rudy Chato Paul, Sr.
Hmm, interesting decision by a judge. This is what happens when the judge is also the jury. Fortunately or otherwise, he did not step up and take on the role of executioner. I always believed, stoopid me, that the judge has a different function from the jury; hence the need for trial 'by jury.' Did the learned judge consider the credibility of the witnesses, especially if there were police officers involved, as there usually are, somewhere along the line. Perhaps he should have also banned the defense lawyer(s) for doing what defense lawyers do: defend their clients to the best of their ability.

I really must stop taking

I really must stop taking these stupid pills every morning as I read this article and still did not get the story.

I guess that as usual, the reporter took for granted that I already know all the facts as it might have been published before.

Are you serious?! Since I've

Are you serious?! Since I've known myself this young lady has been a menace to the neighborhood! I really do hope for her sake that somewhere in this she was able to develop some form of remorse because if not then we are really setting up ourselves! What is wrong with the justice system in this country? Is there something we should know? sighs!

I can't help but wonder: is

I can't help but wonder: is the judge's decision to ban the jurors a punishment? To my mind, hardly anyone in T&T that I've spoken to on this topic ever looks forward to being a juror. If you tell a citizen that they won't be a juror for 15 years, that's not punishment - in fact, I'm surprised that only 2 of the jurors smiled upon hearing this.

Has the judge just given citizens an incentive to deliver poor decisions?

Very well said. It is insane.

Very well said. It is insane.