Lawyers for Bibi Sharima-Gopaul and her former partner Jarvis Small, the two persons found guilty of murdering 16-year-old Neesa Gopaul, yesterday argued that several irregularities may have led to their conviction.
Bibi Sharima-Gopaul—the teen’s mother—and Small were both convicted by a jury in 2015 for the gruesome murder of the former Queen’s College student, whose remains were found on October 2nd, 2010, stuffed in a suitcase which was discovered anchored by several dumbbells in a creek at the Emerald Tower resort.
Trial judge Navindra Singh had imposed a combined 202-year-sentence on the convicts, with Sharima-Gopaul receiving 106 years in jail, and Small, 96, which both convicts have argued is unduly severe.
When the hearing of the appeals filed against their conviction and sentence commenced yesterday before the Guyana Court of Appeal, attorney Arudranauth Gossai, who is representing Sharima-Gopaul, contended that the trial judge made a grave error by not specifically warning the jury as to how they needed to assess a cell-confession alleged to have been made by her cellmate.
On this point, Gossai said that the judge ought to have expressly higlighted to the jury that the evidence was possibly suspicious since it was coming from a witness who was behind bars at the time awaitng trial herself, for charges assocoiated with dishonesty.
Against this background, Gossai said that the trial judge needed to have expressly warned the jury that extra care needed to be taken in their consideration of this bit of evidence allegeing that Sharima-Gopaul had made a confession.
The lawyer contended that to have merely told the jurors that they needed to be mindful of that particular witness’ testimony without going further to specifically reference the nature of the charges for which she had been incacerated was not enough.
This, the lawyer said, could have been fatal to his client’s case as he emphasised that there needed to be an expressed warning and direction in the judge’s summation to the jury of the potential dangers of acting on a cell-confession from a potentially tainted witness.
In rebutting, however, Prosecutor Stacy Goodings advanced that the judge did give adequate directions to the jury regarding this issue and that the conviction could, therefore, not be regarded as having been unsafe.
On this point, she referenced the fact that that the judge did point out in his summation that in considering that bit of evidence, jurors ought to have done so with care since it was possible that one prisoner may make certain allegations against another to seek favour for release and the like from investigators.
Gossai also argued that prejudicial testimony was allowed in the trial regarding an unrelated reference to the death of Sharima-Gopaul’s husband—Neesa’s father.
The lawyer said that while this bit of evidence seem to have been admitted on the precondition by the judge that a warning would be given to the jury on how to treat with it, no such warning was given. The lawyer said, too, that the judge had made certain speculative remarks regarding some aspects of the unsworn testimony made by Sharima-Gopaul, upon which Gossai said the jury may have acted in finding his client guilty.
But Prosecutor Goodings said that a judge in summing-up a case can express an opinion, which she said is what was done. She added that the judge did adequately inform the jury from the begining of the case that any opinion expressed by the court or even the attorneys did not amount to evidence.
Goodings said that the judge also reminded the jurors that they were at all times the sole judges of the facts and that it was up to them to decide what they believed and did not believe.
As a result, she contended that in all the circumstances the directions given by the trial judge to the jury were adequate.
Arbitrary
Regarding the issue of sentencing, Gossai said that not only must a hearing be fair, but also a sentence.
He then went on to contend that the sentence imposed on his client did not reflect current sentencing guidelines, while arguing that the 60-year base at which the judge commenced seemed to have been arbitrary as there was nothing on the record indicating the reason for it.
Agreeing with Gossai on this point was attorney Nigel Hughes, who represents Small.
Hughes said that while the crime was no doubt abhorrent, it still could not be placed in the category of the “worst of the worst” to have attracted a sentence such as that imposed against his client.
The lawyer said that while there is a breakdown of reasons from the judge for the additions he made to the 60-year base, there is none for the base number itself, which he said seemed to have been an arbitrary starting point.
He said that clear reasons ought to have been given for arriving at that number.
In response, Goodings said that one can only speculate the reason for the 60-year base imposed by the judge, but advanced that sentencing is for the judge’s discretion. She, however, sought to point out that the judge did give reasons for the additions he made to the base.
Regarding his client’s conviction, Hughes said that the indictment ought to have been severed from his co-accused, which he advanced may have been the reason he was convicted in the first place.
On this point, the lawyer said that there were certain statements made by Sharima-Gopaul against Small which sought to implicate him in the murder although they had no probative value at all and should never have been admitted into evidence.
Hughes said that all they did was prejudice his client’s case.
He said that at the end of the prosecution’s case against his client, all that the state had was that a pair of dumbbells belonging to Small were found at the scene.
The lawyer, however, questioned—assuming but not admitting that the dumbbells did belong to his client—how it proved in any way that Small killed the teen. He contended that there is no evidence linking Small to the murder—neither direct nor circumstantial.
The virtual hearing of the appeal will continue on Novmebr 11th for final arguments.
The case is being heard by acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory.
On March 5th, 2015, Sharima-Gopaul and Small were both found guilty by a jury.
Lawyers for the convicts, however, subsequently filed appeals in which they argued, among other things, that Justice Singh committed several errors during the conduct of the trial, including the admittance of evidence that was prejudicial and failing to properly direct the jury.
They also complained that the sentences imposed were far too excessive.
In handing down the sentences, Justice Singh had said he was starting the sentence at 60 years for each of them.
The judge then added 10 years because they premeditated the murder, 10 years because the victim was a child, 10 years for the brutality meted out to the girl and six years for the domestic violence she suffered.
Meanwhile, the judge told Sharima-Gopaul that she was being given an extra 10 years because Neesa was her child and she was supposed to protect her and not stand by and allow her to be murdered.
Main prosecution witness Simone Diane De Nobrega, who was a former cellmate of Sharima-Gopaul, said Sharima-Gopaul had confided in her that it was Small who murdered her daughter by bashing her head in with a piece of wood.
De Nobrega had said that Sharima-Gopaul related to her that Small told her that they needed to get Neesa “out of the picture” and that he eventually killed the teen in her presence.
The witness had told the court that despite her assurance to Sharima-Gopaul, she would not have been able to live with herself if she had kept such a secret. She said as a mother herself of two sons, “I couldn’t carry such a weight.” The woman added, “Neesa deserved to get justice and no matter what, Neesa didn’t deserve to die by the hands of someone she trusted; someone that was supposed to protect her.”
Both convicts have maintained that they are innocent.
