Attorney Brooks drops client mid-trialPOSTED: 06/16/11 1:45 PM
Prosecutor: “This is judicial blackmail”
St. Maarten – Prosecutor mr. B. den Hartigh remained outwardly cool, but he did not mince his words when attorney mr. B.B. Brooks desisted from defending her client Rosalind A. G.-R. any longer when he was about to present the case. “I am going to file a complaint with the Dean of the Bar Association. This behavior is very unprofessional. It is a form of judicial blackmail, but I won’t allow the defendant to become the victim of it.”
Brooks asked the court to hear her client’s son once more about the incriminating statement he had made against his mother, who stands accused of poring a bottle of drain cleaner over a man named Joshua Maynard.
Den Hartigh objected to the request, saying that it is unlikely that the son’s statement is unreliable because it tallies with statements made by the victim. When Judge mr. M, Keppels agreed with the prosecutor and denied the request, Brooks said that she was now forced to desist. “If the request is not granted there is nothing I can do for my client. I will face a claim for damages because I did not do my job properly.”
Judge Keppels said she was not about to discuss a decision she had already taken after which Brooks upped and left and went to sit down in the tribune, leaving the defendant behind in confusion.
The woman confirmed to Judge Keppels that she wants an attorney to help her deal with the case. She followed the prosecutor’s suggestion to postpone the trial until September 1.
The court had already discussed the case in detail with the defendant. Rosalind G., a 55-year-old civil servant with a career that spans 40 years according to her attorney, had an argument with Maynard on April 3 at her home.
In the defendant’s version, she came home around ten o’clock in the morning and found Maynard in a beach chair in her yard reading a book. An argument “about stuff we have problems with” erupted, followed by a scuffle. The defendant said that the man followed her into her house and grabbed her from behind in the kitchen. There she had grabbed a bottle of drain cleaner and thrown it at him. The man suffered burn wounds from the acid to his neck, throat, upper arm, chest and thigh.
But the victim told a different story, Judge Keppels pointed out. “He said that you went inside and that he went back to the beach chair, reading a book. Shortly afterwards he felt a hot fluid on his skin. He said you emptied the bottle on him, telling him: I will burn you or I will kill you.”
It appeared that the defendant, who has been suspended from her job since her arrest the day after the acid attack, was blind drunk at the time. “After six hours she was still too drunk to be interrogated, and at eight o’clock in the evening she was still under the influence,” Keppels pointed out.
The defendant claimed later that what happened was ‘an accident” and that she regretted it. She told the court that she is looking for help to overcome her addiction to alcohol. “And I won’t let any strangers into my house anymore,” she said, assuring the Judge that similar incidents would not happen again in the future.
Brooks asked the court to hear the defendant’s son about his incriminating statement that tallies with what the victim told the police. “On certain points his statement is bizarre. He is a patient of the Mental Health Foundation and he did not see what happened, because he was not there.”