Pre-Trial Publicity and Juror Prejudice: A Case Study

• Author: Ramesh Deosaran
• Pages: 497-525

497

PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY AND JUROR PREJUDICE

Pre-Trial

Publicity and

Juror Prejudice:

A Case Study 1

Ramesh Deosaran

Twenty-Two

This paper seeks to do four things. Firstly, it

details the quantity and quality of pre-trial

publicity generated over an actual case in

Trinidad. Secondly, it examines the

psychological impact of this publicity on a

sample of persons qualified to be jurors.

Thirdly, it seeks to measure the subsequent

degree of confidence which these

prospective jurors have in the press carrying

the pre-trial publicity. Fourthly, it illustrates

how the structure and process of the actual

trial could temper the impact of the pre-trial

publicity related to the case.

THE PRESS AND THE LAW

Incident, Inquiry, Indictment;

Sequence of Events

This section does not deal with the

evidential aspects of the case itself. It is

confined to the publicity which occurred

between the date of the alleged crime and

the date when the charge of murder was

formally laid (i.e. from September 11–

September 29, 1982) against the police

inspector, Rudolph Regis.2 The inspector was

charged for allegedly causing the death of

civilian Reynold Ganesh by striking him

with a gun. At the second magistrates’

hearing, the charge was reduced to

manslaughter. Another indictment for

murder was issued.3 This led to a jury trial in

1984. This trial is discussed later in this paper.

The following is a brief outline of the

sequence of events upon which the publicity

was based:

498

CRIME, DELINQUENCY AND JUSTICE

1. On Saturday, September 11, 1982, a 27 year old man, Reynold Ganesh,

died in an incident involving Police Inspector Rudolph Regis and arising

out of a motor car accident. This was first reported in a front page story in

the Trinidad Guardian on Wednesday, September 15, 1982.

2. Eyewitnesses then alleged through reports to the police station and

statements given to the two daily newspapers that Inspector Regis caused

Ganesh’s death with a blow from a pistol.

3. On Sunday, September 20, 1982, Acting Assistant Commissioner (Crime)

Allen Drayton issued a press release announcing that Police Commissioner

Mr Randolph Borroughs had ordered an investigation ‘shortly after the

incident’ had occurred, and that the statements taken had been sent to the

office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

4. On Wednesday, September 23, 1982, the Acting DPP, Mr Victor Nunez,

referred the matter for a coroner’s inquest. No one was charged at this

time.

5. On Wednesday, September 29, 1982, the DPP, Mr Clebert Brooks (just back

from vacation), rejected the decision for a coroner’s inquest and ordered

that Inspector Regis be charged with the murder of Ganesh.

6. On Thursday, September 30, 1982, Inspector Regis was taken to the

magistrates’ court. Against strong objections by defence counsel, the case

was postponed to October 5, 1982 by presiding magistrate, Mr Laymas

Sinanan.

7. On October 8, 1982 after hearing various statements and arguments in court,

the Acting Chief Magistrate, Mr Lincoln Dwarika, reduced the charge from

murder to manslaughter.

8. On March 9, 1984, the DPP again charged Regis with murder. The case

went before a jury on April 12, 1984.

PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY: DATA AND CONTROVERSY

Between September 11, 1982 when Ganesh was allegedly killed by a blow

from the police inspector’s gun, and September 29, 1982 when a charge of murder

was formally laid against Inspector Regis, all of the nation’s news media (two

dailies, two evening papers, four weeklies, one television and two radio stations)4

consistently gave very graphic details and widespread coverage of the incident,

and of the two persons allegedly involved.

The Trinidad Guardian first reported the incident on Wednesday, September

15, 1982 in its front page. Between that date and September 29 when the charge

was laid (a 15-day period inclusive) there were 456 column inches of publicity,

including three very hard-hitting editorials and three front page stories with

striking pictures. The rate was 30 column inches per day, with 83 per cent of the

publicity occurring in the two dailies. Though not actually measured in this study,