Dear Editor,
I wish to comment on some aspects of the pivotal ongoing election fraud trial. The written, certified transcripts and videos govern the proceedings, and take precedence over the Magistrate’s and attorneys’ notes. Justice demands that a complete and accurate record be made contemporaneously, and it is essential that it is given utmost importance to ensure the trial’s integrity. The Court cannot cherry pick the evidence, although it can assess its credibility.
Moreover, the prosecution must be allowed to present its case without obstruction or restrictions, subject to evidentiary rules, like inadmissible hearsay, speculation, relying on non-expert opinions, irrelevance, etc. A trial in democracies, including Guyana, is an open ventilation of the facts, in open, public proceedings.
Statements and testimonies given previously can be expanded upon. The fact that the latest testimonies contradict and/or add to what was previously given can be devastating grounds for cross examination, and, subject to relevancy, cannot be limited to previous parameters. Hence, a trial cannot be restricted only to statements, which are sometimes given to meet the threshold of making a prima facie case in preliminary proceedings prior to a trial. If not, what use will there be for public trials?
Further, the charges allege that, inter alia, between March 2, 2020 and August 2, 2020, Lowenfield, Myers and Mingo, while in Georgetown, conspired with the other six defendants and others to defraud the electorate of Guyana by declaring a false account of the votes cast. Should the evidence reveal that the “others” not specifically mentioned in the charges, conspired with and/or aided and abetted those presently charged, then the DPP will be failing in her public duty if they are not similarly charged, even if their conduct is not as shockingly egregious as the main defendants.
In other words, planners, plotters, advisers, facilitators and “look out” participants are equally liable, as long as it can be proved that they knowingly did so, and will meet the threshold of culpability. They do not have to pull the proverbial trigger, or, in this case, compile, circulate, announce and/or attempt to pass off the fraudulent spreadsheets. For example, knowingly entering the false data, foisting the false sheets on others knowing they were false, are enough to establish culpability. Defences like duress, or “being ordered by the party boss to do so,” are excuses they can raise to attempt to refute the cases against them.
Consequently, unindicted co-conspirators can still be made accountable by the filing of updated, additional charges, or a superseding indictment, by the DPP, if reliable testimony implicates others, although they were not originally named in the proceedings. The Court cannot refuse the testimony, as its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, and is part and parcel of the scheme the prosecution is alleging. The safeguards of due process demand that, at the end of the day, the prosecution must discharge its enormous burden of proving that the defendants are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and must meet the highest standard of proof in the law.
As requested by the defence, the Court should also allow a visit to the locus in quo, or the site of the crimes at the former Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)’s Command Centre, as has obtained in previous trials I conducted in Guyana years ago, where the Court, attorneys and the jury visited a murder scene. The fact finder or jurist is advised to visit the locus in quo in order to fully understand and appreciate the evidence or matter before it and also to have a proper visual understanding of the facts and modus operandi before the court of this crime – the most brazen, attempted electoral theft in Guyana and Commonwealth history.
Yours faithfully,
Albert Baldeo, Former Magistrate, Senior State Prosecutor, and Police Legal Advisor (Guyana)
