Judge upholds verdicts in slaying outside Jaguars
Published: July 15, 2013
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
ST. THOMAS - A V.I. Superior Court judge on Friday rejected a motion to dismiss the verdicts of two men who were involved in the shooting death of a man outside Jaguars night club in November 2010.
Lorn Henley, 21, and Shakieme Freeman, 20, were found guilty in May of reckless endangerment in the shooting death of 31-year-old Aquil Abdullah. They initially had been charged with second-degree murder; voluntary manslaughter; first-degree assault; third-degree assault; unauthorized use of a firearm during the commission of second-degree murder; and first-degree reckless endangerment.
A third defendant, 24-year-old Vincent Thompson Jr., was charged with the same offenses and was tried with Henley and Freeman in early May. The jury found Thompson not guilty, and Henley and Freeman were found guilty only of reckless endangerment after a nearly week-long trial.
On Friday, Superior Court Judge Adam Christian dismissed the men's motion for acquittal and set a sentencing date of Sept. 4.
The penalties for first-degree reckless endangerment are significantly lighter than for assault or murder, and both men will face up to five years in prison.
According to court documents and trial testimony, Abdullah, who was unarmed, was leaving Jaguars night club when he tossed a cup of liquid into the air. The cup landed on the hood of a truck Henley was driving as he, Freeman and Thompson also were leaving the club. The accident so enraged Henley that he confronted Abdullah and an argument ensued, attracting Thompson and Freeman to the area. Gunshots erupted, and Abdullah was shot 11 times.
Eyewitnesses placed all three defendants around the victim during the barrage of shots, but no one testified that they had actually seen any of the three defendants draw a gun and shoot the victim.
Jeffroy Jeffers, a friend of the victim, testified that, as Abdullah challenged Henley to shoot him, Henley repeatedly reached around to his right back pocket.
Jeffers testified that Henley was directly in front of him, about five or six feet away, when the shooting broke out.
Assistant Attorney General Edward Veronda provided the jury with copious physical and technical evidence - including DNA samples, ballistics data and cell phone records - linking the three defendants to the scene. Experts testified that a pair of boxer shorts found in Henley's truck tested positive for gunshot residue.
Another key witness for the prosecution was Dale George, a friend of the defendants, who testified that he was in an SUV with Freeman when the fight broke out. Freeman jumped out, ran up to the fight, and George saw muzzle shots issuing from where Freeman and Henley were standing, according to George's testimony.
George also said Freeman came back a short time later, telling everyone in the car: "'I think I shot him in the leg. I think I emptied my clip.'"
Attorney Robert King filed a motion for judgment acquittal on behalf of Henley on May 15.
The motion was two-pronged, arguing that the statute defining reckless endangerment is "unconstitutionally vague" and that the "evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction."
Attorney Russell Pate, who represents Freeman, filed a notice of joinder May 17, seeking to have Freeman acquitted on the grounds that reckless endangerment was unconstitutionally vague.
The notice specifically states that Pate declined to argue there was insufficient evidence against Freeman.
King's motion states that the prosecution failed to prove that Henley did anything but "engage in a heated quarrel" and that there was no evidence that Henley had or used a gun during the events that led to Abdullah's death.
"There is no requirement that there be eyewitness testimony of the defendant firing the weapon or that the authorities recover the weapon," Veronda argued in a response to the defendants' motion.
"Obviously, dispensing lethal projectiles in the area of a public street where many people are leaving a popular night club is an action that 'creates a grave risk of death to another person,'" Veronda wrote.
- Contact Amanda Norris at 714-9104 or email anorris@dailynews.vi.
V.I. Police ask for more time to comply with looming consent decree deadlines
Published: July 15, 2013
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
ST. CROIX - The V.I. Police Department has asked a judge for more time to make court-ordered improvements, prompting questions from federal civil rights lawyers about whether police can possibly meet the mandates of a consent decree by the deadline the territory agreed to.
The territory's request to push back some of the intermediate deadlines comes as the final, overarching deadline for police to fully comply with the consent decree - Oct. 31 - looms less than four months away.
The consent decree requires the V.I. Police Department to implement a multitude of changes that will correct conditions that prompted the U.S. Justice Department to file a lawsuit in 2008 contending that the V.I. Police Department had a pattern of violating residents' civil rights by using excessive force and failing to adequately train, supervise, investigate and discipline its officers.
The consent decree, which police have been operating under for more than four years, settles that lawsuit by forcing the territory to fix those problems.
However, the most recent report released by independent monitors assessing the Police Department's efforts indicates that while police have made significant progress, they had failed to reach substantial compliance with any of the major provisions of the consent decree. That report covered the last quarter of 2012.
U.S. Justice Department attorneys were critical of the territory's last-minute filing seeking extensions for eight intermediate deadlines that are part of a court-ordered action plan that outlines interim steps to bring the territory into compliance with the consent decree.
The territory's motion, "filed after the close of business on the last business day prior to the deadline for the relevant provisions, is another eleventh-hour attempt to further extend Consent Decree deadlines with no foresight, advance planning, thoughtful tailoring, or evident, concrete compliance plan," the U.S. Justice Department states in its response. "The United States is concerned that these deficiencies, coupled with Defendants' consistent, continuing failures to comply with any substantive provision of the Consent Decree, are indicative of an inability to meet the Consent Decree's final compliance deadline of October 31, 2013."
The deadlines for the eight provisions had been June 30. The territory has requested that those deadlines be pushed back to Oct. 31, the same day the territory has agreed to have the consent decree fully implemented.
Those eight provisions deal with developing and implementing "audit" tools so that the Police Department can track and monitor whether its personnel are properly following policies and procedures - many of them newly developed policies aimed at fixing the deficiencies - and so that it can discipline and provide remedial training for those personnel who are not.
According to the territory's motion, the Police Department needs more time "to fully develop its auditing plan, consult with DOJ and implement a comprehensive audit."
It goes on to say that although the action plan required the territory to train staff on the audit protocol by June 30, the Police Department was unable to meet the deadline because the territory failed to approve the contract for the trainer until June 5.
At this point, the training can only be done between Oct. 14 to 25, according to the motion.
The Police Department also must revamp its disciplinary matrix, which has not been finalized yet, according to the motion.
Once the disciplinary matrix has been finalized, training has to be conducted, according to the territory's motion. The disciplinary policy and matrix has to be finalized and officers trained before several of the provisions of the consent decree that refer to discipline can be fully and completely implemented as required, the motion states.
The U.S. Justice Department's response to the territory's motion lays out the history of the territory's missed deadlines in the case.
The territory originally had agreed to reach substantial compliance with the consent decree by March 2012, with the idea that it would maintain that compliance for two years before the consent decree would be terminated in March 2014.
That did not happen.
Eventually, after conducting hearings, the court last year granted a U.S. Justice Department motion to get rid of the termination date on the consent decree altogether. Instead, the consent decree will end only after the Police Department has achieved and maintained significant compliance with the decree's provisions for two years.
The revised, pushed-back deadline for the territory to initially reach compliance with those provisions is Oct. 31.
In its response to the territory's motion to push back some of the intermediate deadlines, the U.S. Department of Justice says it does not necessarily oppose the request but says it wants some explanation.
The federal government also is asking the judge to require the territory to provide a detailed explanation of:
- How the territory plans to comply with the requirements of the action plan for which it is seeking the extension, including an explanation of "when and how they plan to engage the United States for the required consultation on the relevant provisions."
- Why the territory thinks Oct. 31 is an appropriate deadline for each of the eight provisions for which an extension is sought.
- How the proposed extension will affect the territory's ability to comply with the consent decree's final substantial compliance deadline of Oct. 31.
The judge has not yet ruled on the requests from either side.
- Contact Joy Blackburn at 714-9145 or email jblackburn@dailynews.vi.
Governor sends HOVENSA agreement to Legislature
Published: July 15, 2013
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
ST. CROIX - Gov. John deJongh Jr. has submitted the government's proposed agreement with HOVENSA - which lays out responsibilities and governs how the company will attempt to sell its shuttered refinery - to the 30th Legislature for ratification.
Under the terms of the proposal, the Senate has a month from today to act on the matter.
The governor transmitted the proposed agreement - the fourth amendment to the HOVENSA concession agreement - and the legislation that would ratify it to the Senate on Friday night.
"The Amendment sets forth the terms and conditions under which HOVENSA'S owners must undertake a defined and arms-length process to sell the refinery and its related facilities to a willing operator," deJongh wrote in an accompanying letter to Senate President Shawn-Michael Malone. "I believe the amendment provides a major opportunity for the Territory to heal its economic wounds and allow our people to move forward to a brighter future."
The amendment governs how the company will go about attempting to sell its refinery and related facilities on St. Croix's South Shore, and the responsibilities of the parties during the time the refinery is up for sale, a time called the "sales process period." That period would last about a year, until Aug. 15, 2014, unless the parties agree to extend it.
The parties to the agreement are HOVENSA, Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., PDVSA V.I., Inc. - the two companies that each own 50 percent of HOVENSA - and the V.I. Government.
The January 2012 decision by HOVENSA to shutter its refining operations and convert to an oil storage terminal led to negotiations between the company and the V.I. government, because that kind of change in operations requires revisions to HOVENSA's 1998 concession agreement with the government. The concession agreement runs through the end of 2022.
"The 30th Legislature's approval of the submitted agreement will allow the process of getting a new owner to begin, which will ensure that the facility is once again a place of job creation and generation of tax revenues for the territory," deJongh said in a statement that Government House released Saturday.
In the statement, deJongh said he believes that the agreement represents a significant step toward the refinery's sale.
"Our negotiations with the refinery's owners have been long and difficult, but seeing if we can get the refinery reopened has been important to me and many in our community," he said. "For the last year and half, we have experienced what a closed refinery means to our economy and that continuing scenario is something we can ill afford given the prominence of its location and, quite frankly, its potential value locally and to an industry that is going through a transformation that we can be a part of."
The agreement
In his letter to Malone, deJongh describes the basic structure of the amendment, noting that it requires HOVENSA to undertake a "bona fide sales process administered by a reputable and experienced investment banking firm.
"In exchange, the government will temporarily permit HOVENSA to operate the refinery site as an oil storage terminal, on terms consistent with the smaller economic output of such an operation - including temporarily reduced payments in lieu of property tax," the governor wrote.
DeJongh goes on to say that if the refinery is sold to an acceptable buyer, who would want to negotiate a new agreement with the government, HOVENSA may be released from its obligations under the concession agreement, and HOVENSA would pay the government a portion of the sales proceeds.
If the refinery doesn't sell, HOVENSA would resume its obligations under the concession agreement and repay the government all deferred payments in lieu of property tax, the governor wrote.
He goes on to say that the agreement is structured to provide incentives for HOVENSA to sell.
"ln short, if HOVENSA fails to sell the refinery, it faces the prospect of resumed concession agreement obligations, a substantial repayment of deferred taxes, a limited revenue-producing oil terminal, and a lawsuit," he wrote.
Specifics
Some specific terms of the agreement include:
- HOVENSA is to retain a "reputable" investment bank experienced in the sale of oil and gas assets to conduct a bona fide sales process within 10 days of the agreement's ratification.
- Before that sales process begins, the investment bank is to brief the governor and his advisers to explain the strategy and mechanics of the sales process and answer questions. The bank must continue to brief the advisers - Duff & Phelps LLC - monthly.
- Within 15 days of the initial briefing, the government would provide written guidance to the investment bankers on possible modifications or alternative approaches to the existing concession agreement that may be available to the refinery buyer.
- During the sales process period, the requirement for HOVENSA to bid annually on the V.I. Water and Power Authority's fuel supply would be suspended.
- The government would temporarily reduce HOVENSA's obligation to make payments in lieu of property taxes to $7 million annually for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, 2013, and continuing through Fiscal Year 2019, as long as HOVENSA is operating an oil storage terminal or until the sale. Currently, HOVENSA is paying $14 million annually.
- If the refinery is not sold, HOVENSA would make a lump sum payment to the government equal to the value of the payments in lieu of property tax that were deferred. That payment is to happen when HOVENSA stops operating an oil storage terminal or on Aug. 15, 2019, whichever happens first.
- The government would forbear collection of import duties and other taxes on all oil storage contracts entered into before or during the sales process period that expire within five years or by Aug. 15, 2019.
- HOVENSA would make storage available for fuel to meet the local needs of St. Croix through Aug. 15, 2019, or as long as HOVENSA is operating the oil storage terminal.
- HOVENSA would make fuel available to the government and the public at its truck loading rack through March 31, 2014. After that, HOVENSA would help the government secure responsible third-party suppliers and operators.
- If a sale is consummated, HOVENSA would pay the V.I. Government a lump sum that equals either 20 percent of the gross sale proceeds or $50 million, whichever is less.
- During the sales process period and any period when HOVENSA is operating as an oil storage terminal, it would provide the government with a list of client names, contract end dates and types of petroleum products stored at the facility, subject to a non-disclosure agreement. During this time, HOVENSA would invest at least $500,000 annually in scholarships or career and technical education programs for residents of the territory. It would also provide the University of the Virgin Islands with access to the specialized classrooms, laboratories and equipment at the HOVENSA Training School.
The submittal
The governor submitted a 26-page packet to the Legislature, but much of that is the letter and an annotated version of the agreement, which highlights each provision of the amendment, and provides written explanations for each.
The amendment itself - excluding signatures - is only four pages long.
In his seven-page letter, deJongh provides background on the situation and a summary of the agreement, and then addresses specific concerns about its terms.
He then asks the senators to ratify the amendment, saying that in his view, the agreement "is critical to the economic well-being of the territory and strongly in the public interest."
The Senate has not yet publicized the date when it will consider the amendment agreement.
- Contact reporter Joy Blackburn at 714-9145 or email jblackburn@dailynews.vi.
We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:
This article was so informative and it gave me some clarity. Feel free to go through my articles as well.
ReplyDeleteHow is embedded software different from automotive and firmware?
What Is The Importance Of PCB Design?
WHAT IS EMBEDDED SOFTWARE AND FIRMWARE?
4 Ways To Improve The PCB Design
What Are The Materials Used To Make Printed Circuit Boards?
Know The Devices That Use Embedded Software Significantly
Advantages of working with CAD drafting Companies
For what reason do organizations require RoHS compliance?
Purpose And Information On Safety Data Sheets