Michael Emanuel, the 25-year-old labourer who was on trial for murdering a Linden, Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice) footballer in 2018, was freed on Monday after a no-case submission put forward by his lawyer was upheld. The indictment against him had alleged that he murdered Leonard Peters on December 21, 2018, at Watooka, Linden.
Dead: Leonard Peters
Emanuel, also of Linden, had initially pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Following the close of the case for the prosecution which was led by State Counsel Lisa Cave, State Counsel Taneisha Saygon and State Counsel Muntaz Ali; Emanuel’s lawyer Damien Da Silva submitted that the State had no case against his client, and as such, he should be discharged without being called upon to lead a defence. Justice Sandil Kissoon upheld the no-case submission and directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
Based on reports, Peters was lashed to his head and stabbed to his chest during a fight at a social event. He died while receiving treatment at the hospital. It was reported that the incident stemmed from a misunderstanding between Peters and Michael Emanuel’s 19-year-old brother while they were at a party.
Whilst at the event, it was reported that Peters accidentally spilled alcohol on the teenager and they ended up in a scuffle. The teen then went home and complained to his mother. Peters is alleged to have run in the yard and attacked the teenager with a piece of wood, causing his brother to intervene.
Michael Emanuel, however, managed to disarm Peters and allegedly dealt him a blow to his head. During the ordeal, it was reported that Peters was also stabbed.
Freed: Michael Emanuel
Justice Kissoon, in upholding the no-case submission, said that the defence of self defence arose from the very case in which the prosecution was seeking a conviction. The Judge said that the evidence shows that it was Peters who attacked Emanuel on his hand with a knife after a quarrel. According to the Judge, Emanuel responded by firing lashes at Peters with a bicycle bar before they ended up in a scuffle.
During the scuffle, the Judge said Emanuel disarmed Peters, and even though he had the knife, he kicked him, although he had to opportunity to attack him with the weapon. “Paradoxically, the defence of self defence arises from the very evidence on which the prosecution relies to support a conviction. The prosecution’s case, therefore, suffers circumstantially from its own inherent weaknesses,” the Judge held.
Justice Kissoon explained that a person could not be acting in self defence of their person, in defence of their property, or in defence of the safety of another and at the same time be found to possess the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm – an element of the offence of murder.
While there is the inference that Emanuel acted offensively out of provocation, the Judge added that the matter does not end there. On the assumption that the evidence by the prosecution is true, the Judge said that such evidence gives rise rationally to two conflicting inferences and it is required by law that the inference which is most favourable to the accused [Emanuel] be drawn by the jury.
The Judge reminded that at all times the eyewitnesses testified that Emanuel was armed with a piece of wood. However, he said that the prosecution is asking the court to rely on indirect evidence, in that, there were two parties to the conflict and therefore it has to be one or the other who inflicted the injury.
According to Justice Kissoon, the prosecution was relying on circumstantial evidence to show that because Emanuel was armed with a piece of wood, he had the opportunity and the time to attack the now dead man. But Justice Kissoon told the jurors that there is a difficulty here since the evidence puts a crowd of persons in the yard and at the entrance to the track.
“This is not a case where two persons are present and all others are excluded. No one can account for whether anyone else present in the yard would have inflicted the injury [on Peters],” he added.
The Judge continued, “At the close of the prosecution’s case, the prosecution has failed to negatise the defence of self defence, and in failing to negatise self defence, they had failed to establish an element of the offence of murder – that the accused intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased.”
Equally, in the present case, the Judge highlighted that the prosecution’s case suffered a two-fold defect – it failed to negatise the defence of self defence and direct evidence that it was Emanuel who inflicted the fatal injury on Peters.
Having regards to the deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, the Judge upheld the submission of no-case to answer and directed the 12-member mixed jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty. (G1)
