Confusion emerges over reported ruling in 2007 cocaine case
THE ST JAMES Parish Court has set the case of Mickey Miller, who is currently before the court on cocaine charges, for mention on April 8 in order to clear up confusion over whether the matter had proceeded to trial prior to being adjourned sine die.
Miller, who is of a Lilliput address, is charged with possession of cocaine, dealing i n cocaine, attempting to export cocaine, and conspiracy to export cocaine, arising from his arrest in May 2007 in relation to three pounds and 1.19 ounces of cocaine.
During Miller’s l atest court appearance on Tuesday, his attorney Charles Sinclair raised concern to presiding Judge SashaMarie Smith-Ashley over notes he had received that morning regarding his client’s previous court appearances, where Miller’s case was adjourned sine die, or without a future resumption date in sight, despite the matter having apparently been tried.
“The matter had got to the point where it was adjourned sine die, and when I made enquiries as to why the matter was adjourned, I asked for the court sheet for them to tell me why the matter was adjourned sine die after evidence was given. There was another person who was found in possession [of cocaine], but that person apparently absconded,” Sinclair told the court.
He was referring to Miller’s former co-defendant Ishell Mhlophe, for whom a warrant of arrest was issued when she failed to return to court in 2007 after having been granted bail.
“I also see where what appears to be a strange statement in relation to that person, so my analysis of it is that they got to a point where they could not establish any conspiracy charge against Mr Miller without that person, and that person at that time was nowhere to be found. When I looked on what is noted on the court record, in relation to Mr Miller, on November 15, 2007 they were ordering for a stop order to be lifted and traffic documents to be returned to him ‘today’, and it was signed by the resident magistrate,” Sinclair added.
NOT AN OPTION
“If trial actually commenced in the matter, unless the resident magistrate died or was so incapacitated that he or she could not continue with the trial, then it must have ended in one or another of a particular way. Adjourning sine die is not one of those options,” Smith-Ashley remarked.
“Because t hey don’t have sufficient evidence to establish the charge against Mr Miller, then Mr Miller should have been acquitted. But there seems to be some notation that says the matter was adjourned sine die,” Sinclair argued.
The court was also advised that the warrant which was issued for Mhlophe is still in effect.
Ashley subsequently set the matter for mention on April 12 to allow time for a resolution of the prosecution’s case file as it relates to Miller.
The defendant’s bail was also extended to the new court date.
The allegations are that, on May 18, 2007, Miller was taken into custody along with Mhlophe, when both were checking in at the Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay to leave the country.
According to reports, Mhlophe was preparing to board a flight to London, England, when her suitcase was searched and two plastic bottles were found inside it. The bottles were found to contain a substance which tested positive for cocaine.
Under questioning from the on-duty officer, Mhlophe reportedly pointed out Miller, who was also in the boarding line for the London flight, as the one who gave her the substance.
Under caution, Miller allegedly addressed Mhlophe and said,“You chat too much, if you did keep your mouth, you and your pickney dem woulda all right.”
Afterward both were arrested and charged.