JUSTICE Roxanne George yesterday found Eon Williams called ‘Georgie’ the accused in the Kwasi Wilson murder trial not guilty on a defence of no-case submission. But despite prosecutor, Konyo Sandiford’s document indicating an intention to appeal against the judge’s acquittal ruling as well as the prosecution’s objection to bail, the freed accused was allowed by the judge to leave the court after signing his own recognizance.
The judge’s ruling was a lengthy one.
After learning from the ruling that the no-case submission by veteran defence counsel, Mr. Compton Richardson was upheld and the accused would be acquitted prosecutor, Sandiford said to the court, “In this case, before the accused is discharged the State will like to serve a notice of appeal.
“This is only an intention to appeal, but I will submit that according to the Court of Appeal Act, at this stage, all that is necessary is for the presentation of an intention to appeal. We will have 14 days within which to file an appeal”.
At this stage, defence counsel applied for bail, contending that the planned appeal does not have a chance of succeeding.
Interrupting the prosecutor said, in the event that the court is mindful of granting bail, I shall ask that that bail be substantial.
The judge taking into consideration that the freed man had already been incarcerated for five years declared that she would let him sign his own recognissance.
And he was told that in the event that an appeal is filed he should make himself available to the court.
During her ruling yesterday the judge referred extensively to all the evidence in the case and cited several decisions of well known relevant cases  which showed that to do otherwise  than accepting the defence submission  would be tantamount to asking the jury to speculate.
During the hearing of the submissions the prosecutors hoping that the ruling would call on the accused for a defence and that the matter would be sent to the jury for their consideration and verdict.
On  the other hand, Mr. Richardson, a veteran lawyer whose decision to make no-case submissions at this stage following the close of the prosecution’s case wa0s motivated by the fact, he said, that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was the person who caused the death of the deceased.
In the substantive trial before the voir dire was undertaken, Richardson had told the judge that he was relying on cases which supported his stand.
In the case, Eon Williams, called ‘Georgie’ was indicted with the offence of murder.
It is alleged that the accused between the 9th and 10th days of April 2007, murdered Kwasi Wilson called ‘Kwasi’.
According to prosecutor Miss Retina Singh, “This is a case where the two young men who were friends got into a heated argument which escalated into a scuffle and a fight at Sandy-Babb Street, Kitty. There it is alleged the accused unlawfully stabbed Kwasi Wilson in his abdomen resulting in his death.
Te facts disclosed that at the beginning of the struggle both men were armed with a knife. Early in the fight the accused received a cut on the left palm.
It is said that after this, he, the accused, threw the knife to the ground, and there was no evidence that he was seen to pick it up.
There was another fight outside the deceased’s home. There, the two men were seen standing facing each other.
Later the accused was seen running away and the deceased was seen entering his yard holding his abdomen with his intestine protruding.
The accused in a caution statement, said that the deceased was attacking him with a knife when he (accused) got his hand cut but he does not know how the deceased got bore.
The defence story was that the deceased met his death by misadventure when he cut his own self during the struggle.
And in cross-examination, Dr. Nehaul Singh, who performed the post mortem on the deceased, told defence  counsel that it was possible that the  two wounds he saw on the body of the  deceased could have been self inflicted.
And the doctor agreed with Richardson that the wounds could have been inflicted by the deceased if the deceased was armed with a knife and there was a struggle between himself  and the accused, it was possible for him to receive the incised wound on the shoulder and the abdomen, which caused death.
From his contention in the substantive trial, defence counsel was contending that the prosecution must first of all prove that the wound that caused death must have resulted by the act of the accused.