USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND st. JOHN GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Plaintiff CRIMINAL NO. F133/81 RAPHAEL LOUIS PARILLA Defendant ee ee et ee ee et ee eee ee et GERALD P. BOGGESS, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Law P. 0. Box 280 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (Attorney for Plaintiff) RHYS S. HODGE, ESQUIRE P. O. Box 9498 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (Attorney for Defendant) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (March 30, 1982) FEUERZEIG, Judge The defendant Rafael Louis Parilla has filed a motion for acquittal and/or for new trial pursuant to Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procdeure. As a basis for his motion, the defendant states that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence so as to shock the conscience of the court. Defendant also states that he did not receive a fair trial because the sister-in-law of an individual who was mentioned in testimony as bearing some resemblance to the defendant sat as a juror in the case. In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court must view the evidence most favorable to the government and assume the truth of the evidence offered by the prosecution. If there is substantial evidence justifying an inference of guilt, the motion for acquittal must be denied. 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal §553, p. 486 (1969). The court believes that the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the conviction. Anna Lopez and Agripina Almonte identified the defendant as the man they saw in the. Aqui Me Quedo Bar the morning that the victim, Pablo Reyes, was shot. Both women testified to having known the defendant for many years. Reyes also identified the defendant as the man who shot him. Whether or not the defendant did not drink or wear a gold chain were questions of fact for the jury. Moreover, the court does not believe resolution of those issues was critical to the ultimate verdict. Regardless, the jury chose to disbelieve the defendant when they found him guilty. The court, therefore, will deny the motion for a judgment of acquittal. In considering a motion for a new trial, the court may weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. If the court reaches the conclusion that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice may have resulted, the court may set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Id. As stated, the defendant claims that he did not receive a fair trial, for among other reasons, because the sister- in-law of Joe Cranston was a juror. Cranston's name arose during the trial when defendant's counsel was cross-examining Juan Montes as to whether he knew Cranston and whether he looked like the defendant. Almost a week after the trial, defendant's counsel states that Cranston called him to say that his sister-in- law was “apparently concerned about his possible involvement." The court believes that defendant's claim is too tenuous to justify a new trial. Because this is a small community, there always exists the possibility that one of the jurors will be related to someone who is tangentially mentioned in a case. Mere relation, however, does not indicate prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. That is particularly so where, as here, defendant's counsel expressly stated on the record that he was not in any way inferring that Cranston was connected to this incident. Even defendant's counsel's affidavit recognizes 3. that this fact, in and of itself, is insufficient to warrant the requested relief because counsel asks the court to investigate this matter to determine if this affected the defendant's opportunity to receive a fair trial. Moreover, the court is of the opinion that it would be improper for the court to investigate the matter because that would entail questioning a juror about the effect of an extraneous influence upon her mind. See Id., §554, p. 492. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant's motion for acquittal and for a new trial is denied. gfe — RY » FEUER JUD =