?The sentencing of seven convicted Trinidadians and four accomplice witnesses has been put off from Carnival Friday – February 12 – to an unknown date after April. This is because the judge has not heard post-trial motions from the seven men, convicted last July 31 of taking US citizen, Balram "Balo" Maharaj, hostage. Maharaj, 62, a Trinidadian, was kidnapped from the Samaan Tree Bar, Aranguez, on April 6, 2005. His remains were found in two containers on January 8, 2006 in the Santa Cruz forest. The $3 million ransom was never paid. After the guilty verdict, one of the convicted men, Corporal Ricardo de Four, filed a motion seeking a new trial. The other convicted men also filed motions. In the case of De Four, his attorneys filed the motion on November 4 in the Washington Federal Court.
Judge John Bates gave the prosecution until January 9 to file its submissions in response to the motion. But the prosecution requested more time and Bates gave it until February 26. He put aside another three weeks for the defence to make a final reply. The judge would then entertain oral submissions on April 16. That means the February 12 sentencing has been put off until Bates determines De Four's motion, as well as others filed by the other convicted men. De Four, 36, was one of 12 Trinidadians extradited to the US in 2007 and 2008 for the kidnapping and killing of Maharaj. One man, David Suchit, was acquitted by a jury and returned to Trinidad. Four others – Leon Nurse, Russel Joseph, Winston Gittens and Jason Percival – pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the US Government in exchange for a reduced sentence.
Seven others–De Four, Zion Clarke, Anderson Straker, Wayne Pierre, Kevin Nixon, Kevon Demerieux and Christopher Sealey–were found guilty before Bates at the E Barnett Prettyman Court in Washington DC. De Four's grounds for the new trial are:
1) His right to present an alibi defence was impaired by the court's denial of his motion to postpone the trial;
2) The failure of the prosecution to disclose material vital to his defence;
3) His statement to the T&T Police was improperly admitted in light of evidence subsequently admitted at the trial.