But Itza is not quite out of the legal woods as yet; he still has aggravated assault, wounding and harm charges pending before the court. Besides that, DPP Anderson told Amandala this morning that his office would appeal today?s decision, because the magistrate committed errors of law, and did not cite any authority for his decision to uphold the defense?s no-case submission.

Itza appeared in the #6 Magistrate Court last Monday with only one of his attorneys, Ellis Arnold, to listen to the prosecution?s reply to their no-case submission, made on Friday, July 16.

The prosecution?s team is comprised of DPP Kirk Anderson, along with Crown Counsels, Anthony Sylvester, Jr., and Kevin Arthurs. Sylvester and Arthurs heard the testimony of witnesses and were also present for the defense?s no-case submission.

However, during the testimony of the last witness, DPP Anderson entered the courtroom and the court was informed that he would be answering the defense on questions of law. Itza?s police career could come to a grinding halt if he is found guilty on any one of the six charges.

The prosecution is alleging that on the night of Sunday, August 24, 2003, Itza, the officer commanding the Dangriga Police formation, falsely imprisoned Timoteo Cano and Lincoln Cardinez, and that he also uttered a threat of death to the two virtual complainants. He is additionally charged with using insulting words to Maria Gonzalez and indecent words to Timoteo Cano.

In their no-case submission, Pitts and Arnold told the court that their client did not have a case to answer on the charge of false imprisonment of Cano and Cardinez, because the information and complaint form that was brought before the court is flawed.

They further argued that even if that submission fails, the prosecution has not brought any evidence to prove their case, and that Itza was acting in the capacity of a police officer, and therefore, his actions are covered by the provisions of the Police Act.

On the threat of death charge, the defense similarly submitted that there was no evidence before the court to support the charge.

The prosecution?s charges of indecent words and insulting words, the defense argued, have also not been proven, and besides, the prosecution brought witnesses that were not credible, the defense told the court in its no-case submission.

On Monday morning, DPP Anderson began by informing the court that: ?The prosecution intends to apply to reopen our case, merely to put into evidence certain photographs that were inadvertently omitted from the prosecution?s case.?

In respect of the defense?s no-case submission, Anderson told the court that: ?The prosecution will make a few concessions at the outset so as not to waste the court?s time. The prosecution will not oppose the no-case submission made in respect of the following charges: Indecent words used to Cano, threat of death used to Cano and threat of death used to Cardinez. The prosecution, however, will reply to the submissions made in respect of the charges of false imprisonment of Cardinez and Cano, and the use of insulting words to Maria Gonzalez.?

Citing various case law authorities, both local and foreign, the DPP informed the court that, ?it is not Your Honor?s position to agree with the defense?s submission as to the believability of the witnesses that the defense submitted are not believable.?

The defense had submitted that the information and complaint sheet in respect of the charge of false imprisonment of Cardinez is flawed and should be struck out.

However, Anderson told the court that ?The prosecution respectfully submits that the defense?s submission in this regard is misconceived.?

DPP Anderson then pointed to section 21 (4) of the Summary Jurisdiction Procedure Act. That section of the law explains that the information and complaint shall be sufficient if it contains a statement of the specific offence with which an accused person is charged.

The prosecution went on to explain in very technical terms and relying on the various provisions of the law that even if the information and complaint is flawed, the most the defense can do is to ask the court to amend the information and complaint sheet. It cannot ask the court to strike out the charge.

In defining false imprisonment, Anderson, citing Archbold 2002, paragraph 19-331 and 332 stated that it must be proved that the complainant?s freedom of movement was restrained; the defendant restrained the complainant?s freedom of movement; the restraint was unlawful and the defendant intended to restrain the complainant?s freedom of movement.

?The complainant?s (Cardinez) evidence is that he was at Ninga Mac Bar, also known as Griga 2000, as a patron sometime after 1:00 a.m. August 24, 2003, when he was searched and forcibly removed from there by the police and subsequently detained at the Dangriga Police Station. This, it is submitted, amounted to a restraining of the freedom of movement of the complainant.?

Having pointed out that Cardinez?s movement had been restrained by the defendant, Itza, the prosecution then pointed to the testimonies of members of the Dangriga Police formation that Superintendent Itza had been commanding at the time of the incident: The testimonies of Corporal Myers, P.C. Salam, P.C. Gilbert Martinez and W.P.C. Daley all corroborated the fact that the defendant detained Cardinez upon the giving of instructions, and that is evidence that the defense had conceded, Anderson argued.

?Therefore, Cardinez?s freedom of movement was restrained and the first element of the offence is made out.? In the testimonies given, Corporal Myers had asked Superintendent Itza what was he to do with Cardinez.

Itza, Myers said in his testimony, had replied: ?Just lock him up!? Although the police have powers to arrest, without a warrant, Anderson pointed out, the arrested person must be told the reason for the arrest:

According to his evidence given in court, Cardinez was detained for over seven hours in the Dangriga Police Station, before he was released without being charged for an offense.

?The Police Act gives authority to policemen to arrest persons. Police officers have to abide by the law. They just cannot arrest willy-nilly. Section 52 (a) of the Constitution makes provision that a person is to be told about the reason for his arrest,? Anderson said.

After Cardinez was arrested, Itza brought in a group of Hispanic persons into the police station. Among them were Timoteo Cano and his wife, Maria Gonzalez.

Cano was later taken into the NCO?s room and subsequently emerged with a head wound that was bleeding.

Before he was taken into the NCO?s room, where illegal immigrants are sometimes kept to be handed over to Immigration officials, Itza referred to Cano?s wife as ?a puta,? resulting in the insulting words charge, for which the prosecution is maintaining that Itza has a case to answer.

Furthermore, the prosecution argued, the defense has not cited any case to support its no-case submission with regards to the charge of insulting words, and that there is sufficient evidence for the defense to have to reply to the prosecution on the charge of insulting words to Maria Gonzalez.

The group, according to court testimonies, was returning from a dance and when they passed in front of the police station, Itza ordered them inside. Once inside the station, Itza ordered that the group were to be detained for immigration purposes – all the police officers that were on duty that night corroborated this, Anderson submitted.

?Where is the evidence that the defendant had that Cano is not a Belizean,? the prosecution argued.

Anderson asked the court to exercise its discretion in the prosecution?s favor by admitting into evidence some photographs that were omitted during the trial.

But Ellis Arnold rose to inform the court that, ?My friend finds himself in a difficult position, because he is making submission to evidence heard during the trial that he had not heard, but was relayed inaccurately to him. The court has already ruled that those evidence are inadmissible. What my learned friend is doing is in effect, asking Your Honor to reverse yourself.?

Magistrate Jones answered: ?An attempt was in fact made to have the witness, Bernard Lino, put the photographs into evidence.?

Anderson, however, told the court that he was not asking Lino to return to the witness stand, but that he was seeking to call additional witnesses, since the court had ruled that the witness, Lino, was not a competent witness regarding the photographs.

Concluding from his fifteen-page written skeleton argument, DPP Anderson said: ?The prosecution submits, in sum, that when the principles applicable to a no-case submission consideration are applied, especially in respect of the submission of insufficient evidence to prove the charges, it is to be seen that a necessary minimum level of evidence, has, to the contrary, been adduced, sufficient to prove the elements of the offence and compelling the defendant to answer to the charges of false imprisonment of Timoteo Cano and Lincoln Cardinez, and use of insulting words to Maria Gonzales.?

Before this morning?s ruling was made, Arnold told the court that it has to exercise its power judiciously and sparingly, if it allows the prosecution to reopen its case. In opposing the introduction of the photographic evidence, Arnold told the court that: ?We have gotten evidence from two witnesses who describes the injuries of the two virtual complainants. The photographs will not take the prosecution?s case one inch further.?

Arnold said that the photographs were not essential to the prosecution?s case. He went on to explain that the medico-legal form already established the wounding, and that he did not see how the prosecution could be relying on the medico-legal form.

But DPP Anderson interrupted him by rising to say that he did not apply to the court for the medico-legal form. Arnold apologized, but rose again to make the point that the photographs were not essential to the prosecution?s case, and therefore the application should not be allowed.

Anderson again rose, telling the court that the evidence of the photographs was just a mere formality, since the photographs, on their own, could speak a thousand words. ?How is the defense going to tell us, the prosecution, what is important to our case?? he said.

Magistrate Jones then weighed in with his ruling, dismissing the application. ?I am still trying to figure out how the photographs were omitted. This court will exercise its discretion and will not be reopening the prosecution?s case.?

At this point, the defense asked for and received a ten-minute adjournment.

When the hearing resumed, Pitts rose to tell the court that his client would be making an un-sworn statement from the defendant?s dock in respect to the other three charges of wounding, harm, and aggravated assault.

Itza told the court that after he arrested Lincoln Cardinez and took him to the police station, he gave instructions that no one should touch Mr. Cardinez. ?I myself at no time hit Mr. Cardinez,? Itza testified.

He said that Timoteo Cano was brought into the station with a number of other persons for immigration purposes, and that he invited Cano into the NCO?s room to interview him. Cano, Itza told the court, was drunk, and once they were inside the NCO?s office, Cano reached for his (Itza?s) weapon, a gun, that was at his waist side, and that a scuffle ensued. ?In order to protect myself and not let him get my weapon, I hit him in the head with my weapon?I at no time threatened Mr. Cano with my weapon or put my weapon in his mouth. That?s it,? he said, as he concluded his brief, unsworn testimony.

Pitts rose and told the court, ?That is the case for the defense.?