By John Denny Observer Reporter
(Charlestown, Nevis) ” Two men convicted of stealing over $30,000 in jewelry were sentenced in the High Court this week by Justice Ianthea Liegertwood-Octave. By unanimous decision last month, Wilson Jones, 31, and Leo Roland Herbert, 18, were found guilty in connection with the Sept. 19, 2007 burglary of the home of Iona Browne in Paradiso Estates Mr. Jones was found guilty of house breaking and larceny. Mr. Herbert was found guilty of receiving stolen property. At the sentencing hearing this past Monday, counsel for Mr. Jones” defense, Chesley Hamilton asked the Judge for a sentence of time served. The two had been in jail for a number of months either waiting trial or serving for another offense. Mr. Hamilton explained to Her Ladyship that Mr. Jones was the youngest child in his family and his mother had died when he was only nine and because of this, he lacked parental guidance when growing up. Counsel also reminded the Judge that Mr. Jones had cooperated fully with the police. Mr. Jones has one daughter and his girlfriend is expecting a second child. Counsel said incarcerating his client would be depriving his children of their father and since most of the stolen property had been returned to the victim, that probation and restitution would be more fitting than prison. Justice Octave felt Jones could have cooperated a little more by pleading guilty and gave him five years. Mr. Herbert represented himself at the trial and when asked to speak for himself at the sentencing hearing. He claimed literacy troubles that resulted in his inability to mount an adequate defense and then told a sad story about dropping out of school when he was 13, being abandoned by his mother and by constantly being picked on by the police. Justice Octave was unmoved, pointing out the fact that he had many prior run-ins with the law that were all larceny. She chastised Mr. Herbert for opening up his grandmother to trouble by hiding the stolen loot in her yard. Mr. Herbert’s grandmother was the only witness he presented at the trial. Mr. Herbert is presently doing a three-year stretch for another conviction, so the Judge tacked on two more to be served consecutively. Director of Public Prosecution Paulne Hendrickson and Assistant Prosecutor Rhonda Nisbett-Bourne represented the Crown at the trial. At the time the two were charged with the crime, they were both in jail for other offenses. The case broke when a friend of one of the accused, jealous of not receiving enough of the loot, accidentally revealed the perpetrators of the crime to a friend during a phone conversation. That person in turn called the police. By the time the police were called, some of the jewelry was in St. Kitts in the possession of Ms. Aureila Lawrence According to testimony, Wilson Jones gave a statement while he was in the Cotton Ground Jail on an unrelated charge. In that statement, Mr. Jones said he was approached by Leo Roland Herbert about two weeks after the burglary with a jewelry box containing several items. Herbert told Jones the jewelry was not stolen, but he was trying o sell it for a woman who was trying to pay for a child’s college. Jones took the jewelry to St. Kitts, where he proceeded to give it to an ex-girlfriend Aureila Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence’s neighbor, Denise Kelly, according to her testimony, was there when Jones was giving away the prizes and became jealous and demanded some for her self. The girls asked Mr. Jones if the merchandise was stolen and he said no. To appease the slighted girl, Mr. Jones gave her a couple of items and then the two women traded them back and forth until an agreement was met. In Jones statement to the police he revealed where he had taken the jewelry and law enforcement from St. Kitts went to Ms. Lawrence’s home and Ms Kelly’s home and recovered the stolen items the women had. Police also conducted a search of the premises of Leo Herbert’s grandmother. Police recovered some more of the stolen property hidden in her yard, further tying him to the crime. Early in the trial, a ruling was made to find Mr. Herbert not guilty of house breaking and larceny. At the justices instruction the jury did not retire, but delivered a not guilty verdict and the charge of house breaking was dismissed from his case. According to the prosecution, this was done because there was no direct evidence linking him to the scene of the crime. Counsel for the defense said that the charge of receiving stolen property required that the one receiving had to know the property was stolen for it to be a crime. “Not believe it is stolen, not suspect it is stolen. He must know it is stolen,” said Mr. Hamilton. Counselor Hamilton made a motion to have Mr. Jones” statement excluded from the record because witness for the prosecution Sergeant Bertie, who had taken the statement from Mr. Jones could not remember if the accused had been advised of his right to counsel. Justice Octave over ruled and the statement stood. Mr. Jones” statement named Mr. Herbert as receiving the stolen goods, but at the request of Mr. Jones” counsel the court struck Mr. Herbert’s name from the statement citing case law that co-defendants cannot incriminate one another. This would not be he last time Mr. Hamilton would lend Mr. Herbert a hand. Several times throughout the trial the co-defendants counsel helped the man trying to conduct his own defense. Evidence taken at the crime scene was minimal. No fingerprints were taken. At a broken window that aided entry to the house there was blood- possibly from the burglar being cut trying to get in, but no effort was made to collect a sample. And muddy footprints through the house were never measured, according to testimony. Police testimony stated the foot print looked like it might be a size 9 or 10 and possibly the make of the shoe or boot was a Timberline. According o testimony, police never checked to see if either of the accused had a matching shoe and it is unclear from the testimony if any photos were taken of the muddy footprints to compare with later. Before the jury retired for deliberation, they were instructed by Justice Octave that they must only consider the evidence heard during the trial in coming to their verdict. During the two-day trial, the jury was removed from the courtroom a number of times to discuss various objections raised by both the counsel and the Crown. She sympathized with the jury and said the trial may have seemed long, but that it was actually quite short. She instructed them that while a unanimous verdict was not absolutely necessary, it was encouraged, but if not unanimous, deliberation could be no less than two hours. The jury was back in less than one.
