4 years later: Election fraud trial final begins, defendants plead not guilty

…as new battle begins on whether defense can make opening address to court

As the trial in the four years long elections fraud case got underway on Monday, the prosecution and defense teams were at odds on whether or not the defense should be allowed to make an opening address after the prosecution made theirs.
When the trial continues on Tuesday, Magistrate Faith MaGusty is expected to rule on whether the defense can make an opening address or whether the prosecution’s opening address will be struck out entirely.
The commencement of the trial on Monday saw the prosecution making an opening address where he underscored the charges before court, the nature of each offense and the evidence that would be presented to support the claims.
The prosecution objected to the defense making an opening address at this stage, arguing that the defense was only permitted to do so at the commencement of the trial, not during preliminary proceedings. However, attorneys for the defense challenged that fairness required that the defense have an equal opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s opening address, questioning whether the magistrate would strike out the prosecution’s entire opening address if the defense was not given the opportunity to reply.

Hughes argued that the existing legal framework should not favor the prosecution and that the defense should be allowed to present its perspective immediately. Anderson supported this view, insisting that even if an opening address was not formally permitted, the defense should at least be allowed to respond to the prosecution’s claims.
The prosecution dismissed these arguments as irrelevant, but Anderson questioned if the magistrate would strike out the prosecution’s entire opening address if the defense was not given the opportunity to reply. Daniels also voiced his support for opening statements from both sides or none at all, emphasizing that statements made outside the courtroom could not be used as evidence and that it was essential for the defense’s arguments to be officially recorded within the trial.
The court is set to reconvene today for the magistrate’s ruling. Nine persons are before the court in this case, which pertains to the March 2020 general and regional elections. They include former Region Four Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo; former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield and his former Deputy, Roxanne Myers.
Also charged are former PNCR Chairperson Volda Lawrence; PNCR activist Carol Smith-Joseph; and GECOM employees Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, Michelle Miller and Denise Babb-Cummings.
In January, McGusty had ruled that the case will proceed summarily and that the case.
On Monday all the defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Together, these nine defendants confront 33 counts of election-related fraud, focused on alleged efforts to manipulate voting results. Initially overseen by Senior Magistrate Leron Daly, the trial began in July 2024, but was paused following her extended medical leave, which has resulted in the trial being reassigned to Magistrate McGusty.
When the matter was called on December 8, 2024, the defense had pressed for a fresh start to the already delayed trial. On the other hand, the prosecution had argued that a restart of the case was completely unnecessary and that all the court needed to do was to recall the previous witnesses. Ultimately, however, Mc Gusty had ordered a restart in the election fraud trial.