(L-R) Attorney Sherfield Bowen, Hezekiah Parker Jr, and Chief Magistrate Ngaio Emanuel
A procedural dispute over judicial impartiality has delayed proceedings in a firearm and drug case further, with Chief Magistrate Ngaio Emanuel now set to rule Monday on whether she will recuse herself from the matter.
The case involves Hezekiah Parker Jr. of Cedar Valley Heights, who remains in custody pending the outcome of the recusal application. Friday’s scheduled hearing was adjourned at the request of Director of Public Prosecutions Clement Joseph to allow the Chief Magistrate time to consider submissions from both sides.
The unusual legal question arose from events that unfolded last week when defense attorney Sherfield Bowen requested a sentence indication on behalf of his client. Such indications are preliminary assessments that inform defendants what penalty they might face if they choose to plead guilty, allowing them to make strategic decisions about their case.
Chief Magistrate Emanuel provided the indication during a private chambers session, as is customary. However, Bowen subsequently argued that having heard the case facts necessary to formulate that indication, the magistrate should now withdraw from the matter entirely to preserve the appearance of impartiality.
The DPP’s office has filed written submissions opposing the recusal request, setting up Monday’s determination.
Parker, who pleaded not guilty approximately two weeks ago, is facing serious criminal charges following a January 10th police raid at his Cedar Valley Heights residence. Authorities reported finding a Smith & Wesson .380 caliber pistol loaded with seven rounds of ammunition, along with 100 grams of cannabis.
He has been charged with unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, possession of cannabis, and the more serious offense of possession with intent to supply.
The defendant will remain on remand until Chief Magistrate Emanuel delivers her ruling on the recusal application Monday morning.
Sounds like this lawyer set this judge up…he asked her to provide this information and now want to say she gonna be bias because of it. It’s a poor defense of his client.
It’s like asking mommy if she gonna beat you if you stole a dumpling out the pot and after she checked that the dumpling missing you tell her she can’t be responsible for deciding if you go get blows cause she looked in the pot 😂
Let’s be honest, this whole situation was unnecessary. If the discussion was supposed to be private, it was underhanded of the defence to then bring it into the public domain. However, the magistrate should have known better than to engage in private commentary in the first place. Judges have to protect the integrity of the court at all costs, because missteps like this can delay justice or even risk the case collapsing altogether. Poor judgment on both sides.
No matter how many times I read this story and it follow-up’s Im still lost and confused. Like the real meat of the story with the details missing
Meanwhile the man still on remand. Justice delayed is justice denied whether guilty or not.
The defense asked for the indication, now they object?
Additionally, it is worth considering whether what appeared to be an unintentional error was, in fact, a deliberate act designed to ensure the dismissal of the case.
Regardless of intent, the conduct of both the senior magistrate and the defence lawyer reflects poorly on their respective professions. Neither can be trusted.
The magistrate should not only stepped aside from this case, but should also reconsider her position on the bench if she can be so readily manipulated by a corrupt barrister.