The Reopening of an Archived 17 Year Old Case

        I’m a defense lawyer. The “defender of criminals” as usually tagged and labelled by the victims and private complainants. I was on my first and a half year as a practicing lawyer. This label has hurt my idealistic sense of justice and thought of swapping tables with the other counsel. But I can’t. Unlike private practitioners, I do not have that kind of privilege. I cannot choose my clients. My work chooses my clients for me.

        But today, I am a different person. I don’t give a damn about that Iabel anymore. I worked for truth and justice. I defend no criminal but protect the sacred rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution. I protect and defend the law which all lawyers promised to adhere and obey. Only that we have different roles and the law has many facets.

        The other day, I was appointed as counsel de officio in a murder case that has happened in the year 1995. The year today is 2012 and the accused is only up for arraignment. Someone may probably ask how and why the hell did the case sit for 17 years without the accused being tried. Well here’s the answer.

        This case is qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, scoffing at a corpse and advantage of superior strength with conspiracy among three accused. Apparently, two of the accused was tried for the case but one escaped. The two were convicted in the lower court while the other remained at large. After 17 years, one of the three accused who remained at large was arrested. And now, he stands for trial.

        There’s something peculiar about this case though.

       

        I went over the records of the case and was surprised to see it. It’s a two volume of records stitched together and as thick as a 6 or 7 inch medical book or dictionary. The information handed to me was in fact fragile and almost yellow in color. Typewritten using a manual typewriter and signed by no less than one of the oldest lawyers in town who used to be the provincial prosecutor back then. My mind is boggled. Not for the defense but for the prosecution. To my young lawyer mind, I thought, how will this case go?

        I was wondering how will the prosecution prove its case. This is a 17 year old case. My client is probably in his late fifties when apprehended. Will there be witnesses still available to testify? What about the relatives of the victim? Are they still interested to prosecute the case? Or are they even still alive?

        And after 17 years, how did this sit on my client’s conscience? IF, he is guilty at all.

        I read the decision involving the first two accused who were convicted. From the narration of facts by the lower court it appears that my present client was the one who shot the victim. I’m not surprised.

This case will probably involve depositions. My very own waterloo. But since this is a country where depositions are not highly in use, I wondered how will the prosecution do it.

That -- I can’t wait to find out.