The three brothers, Marvin, Patrick and Allan who appealed a death sentence which was handed down on them some five years ago will know their fate in a matter of weeks.Yesterday the three brothers had another hearing in the Appeal Court before Justice Ian Chang,Stitched Jerseys, Justice James Bovell-Drakes and Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards.During yesterday’s hearing, the State, which is being represented by Attorney-at-Law Joann Barlow, was given a chance to respond to the grounds for appeal which were raised by the appellants’ lawyer, Mr. Murselene Bacchus.Some of the grounds for the appeal stated that “The Learned Trial Judge erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty upon the submission of no case to answer by Counsel for the Appellants, there being no evidence that: (a) the appellants had committed the offence of murder by agreeing with ‘Johnny’ to commit a felony with violence upon the deceased.”Bacchus in his presentation further stated that there was a non-direction amounting to a serious misdirection when the learned the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the ingredients of the felony of abduction, in that the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury that for abduction, one or more of certain intents must have been held by each of the appellants. It was also put to the court that the learned trial judge misdirected to the jury on the law relating to joint enterprise, thus depriving the appellants of the chance of an acquittal”.In response, Attorney-at-law Barlow stated that at the close of the prosecution’s case the evidence was substantially contained in the caution statements of the three appellants.“…And in those statements while I acknowledge each spoke for himself, the common thread was that pursuant to instruction given to them by a man who was armed, they went to a man’s home in the dead of the night and removed by force that other man’s wife, took her to the man who was armed and proceeded away from her home with her”.Mrs. Barlow further pointed out to the court that in those circumstances the prosecution presented to the learned trial judge and jury a scenario which said these persons acting together with this person who was armed, must have intended, must have foreseen and must have contemplated that the man with the gun could have caused serious bodily harm to the victim or could have killed her with intention to do so.“In those circumstances,Authentic NFL Jerseys Cheap, Your Honor, it is respectively submitted that the learned trial judge could not withdraw that case from the jury”.Addressing the Court on the issue of the action of the appellants, Barlow said “To deal more specifically with the actions of the four persons who were there,Jerseys NFL Wholesale, my learned friend did say that the activity of taking the woman from the house came to an end when she was handed to ‘Johnny’.“I contend that once started, that activity cannot stop unless there is some recognisable legal principle which brings it to an end and the only principle is the principle of withdrawal,China NFL Jerseys, which my learned friend (Murselene Bacchus) said he does not rely on since it does not arise on the evidence”.Barlow further informed the court that it would not be correct to separate this (incident) into an abduction, incidents of rape and then of murder.“When a party joins an enterprise, that party joins that enterprise assuming that he knows all the circumstances existing at that time he joins that enterprise, taking the risk for all that follows that falls within his contemplation.”She added that the only time a person avoids criminal liability for anything that happens in that enterprise is if what happens went outside of what was foreseen by him. “The persons at that house on the night in question knew of the gun and must have realised that the man holding the gun had a certain intention, an intention to either kill or to cause serious bodily harm”.“Notwithstanding the forcibility of that intention they participated; participated by first attempting to use conventional measure to get the victim out of the house, then they ‘braced down’ the door, they called her she did not come out and then they moved to extreme measure to break down the wall of the house”.Those participants, Barlow said, cannot now claim that since they handed her over to ‘Johnny’ their role was finished. “To allow them to say that will allow them to say ‘mischief thou art afoot take whatever course thou will’, and the law does not allow that as long as they are seen as party to that enterprise”.Further, the attorney argued that the Chief Justice did say that they did not participate further. “I respectfully submit while they did not do anything to the victim because we only have their caution stateme