State attorney Krystal Delaney has urged a jury to reject the ‘I was sleeping’ defence given by Rico Renaldo Edwards who is accused of touching an 11-year-old boy in an indecent manner seven years ago.
But defence lawyer Kevin Miller has contended that the prosecution “did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt” and as such his client should be acquitted.
The attorneys were addressing the jury on Monday in the No. 5 Supreme Court before Madam Justice Pamela Beckles who will on Wednesday give a summation of the evidence given at the trial, to the jury.
Principal Crown Counsel Delaney, in her address, said after the child told the camp director and leader what had occurred in the wee hours of May 24, 2015, the accused said “if it happen it must have happened in my sleep”.
In a statement to police that Edwards himself wrote, she said he also stated, “if I do that, I am sorry”, and “if I did it I am not aware”.
The prosecutor described the defence put forward as unbelievable.
“This is one of the most ludicrous defences I have ever heard – and confusing,” she said.
Delaney explained that as far as she understood, the accused was saying, “the complainant was dreaming; I didn’t do this; I touched him only to bring him around. Well I may have done this; it is possible I did; if I did do it I was sleeping”.
“That’s the defence. The accused is trying to get you, the jury, to believe that he was sleeping when this incident occurred.
“. . . All of this in his sleep, that is what he is asking you to believe. . . . Is that believable to you?” she asked the jury.
“When you consider the evidence it makes no sense. It is unbelievable. I suggest that you reject that evidence . . . If you accept the evidence of [the child] then you should convict the accused,” the prosecutor said.
With regards to the evidence given by the camp director and camp leader Paul Persaud, the prosecutor explained they did not know Edwards and Persaud had only met him two weeks prior.
“They do not have any reason to come and make up a story against the accused, to lie on him. They don’t have anything to gain, they don’t have a vendetta,” Delaney stated.
But Miller argued that his client’s case was “simple” as at all times he indicated that he “was asleep”.
The defence attorney went further to say that all the witnesses, apart from Persaud, said Edwards was asleep.
“At all times the accused denied committing this offence. Every single time,” Miller added, saying that when one looked at the evidence, “technically there was only one witness” which is the complainant. He said the others who gave evidence could only say what the complainant told them.
“The defence’s case is that nothing of the sort happened because the accused never interfered with the [complainant],” said Miller who added that the only time the accused had occasion to touch the boy was when he had to pull him off another child.
He also submitted that the prosecution’s case had discrepancies.
“I am asking you to accept the statement given by the accused from the dock and acquit him of the charge . . . bring back a verdict of not guilty in this matter.”
