Somewhere in the Virgin Islands, someone’s ears are burning.
They belong to an unnamed current or former Superior Court prosecutor whose behavior during a criminal trial was sharply criticized in a recent appellate ruling by the U.S. District Court in St. Thomas.
The case involved Ray Thomas (also referred to as Ray St. Thomas), apparently a resident of St. Thomas. He had been convicted of "second- and third-degree assault in connection with domestic violence." His victim is not named in the judgment. Thomas appealed his conviction, but died before his appeal was decided, a drawn-out process described later.
The judges hearing the appeal were upset by what they found in the transcript of the trial:
"… [W]e are compelled to comment briefly on the prosecutor’s conduct during the trial. … during closing arguments, over Thomas’ objections, the prosecutor described Thomas as a cold-hearted and vicious person, a snake, a coward, a shark and the devil. The prosecutor also referring to Thomas’s ‘fifty-three years of evil.’ In addition, while referring to Thomas, the prosecutor stated: ‘Mr. St. Thomas who cannot be prosecuted when accused by a Santo Domingan’ and ‘a Sant[o] Domingan can’t get justice in St. Thomas court.’
"We are deeply troubled by the prosecutor’s statements. The prosecutor essentially conjured up every malicious image possible to characterize Thomas; cast aspersions on his conduct throughout his entire life that had no bearing on the facts of the case; assailed his faith in the Virgin Islands criminal justice system; and suggested, with no apparent basis, that Thomas believed that he could commit a crime with impunity ….
"To our great consternation, statements such as the ones made by the prosecutor in this matter are increasingly common. Indeed, many recent appeals have challenged similar statements or conduct … Simply put, they have no place in the courts of the Virgin Islands, or in any court for that matter."
The somewhat opaque references to Santa Domingo were not explained in the document.
The order and its critique of the prosecutor was signed by the chief judge of the federal district court, Curtis Gómez; Juan R. Sanchez, a federal judge in Pennsylvania sitting by designation; and Judge Julio A. Brady, a Superior Court judge from St. Croix, also sitting by designation. The federal district court serves as the appeal body to the V.I. Superior Court.
While the three judges were quite explicit in their criticism of the nameless prosecutor, albeit in a footnote to the decision, another problem with this case – its glacial slowness – can only be gleaned by reading between the lines in the decision.
The apparent timeline of the case follows:
At some point during the year 2000, Thomas was indicted for assault. The Superior Court case-numbering system indicates the year — it is case No. 298/00.
On Nov. 8, 2002, he was convicted following the closing arguments described above, and given a seven-year prison sentence.
On Dec. 20, 2002, he appealed his conviction.
In July 2006, the District Court heard his appeal, which was still pending until earlier this month.
In February 2007, he was paroled from prison.
On Nov. 7, 2007, Thomas died.
In May 2009, his lawyer filed a motion asking that the conviction be nullified because of his death. The territorial government did not reply.
In June 2009, an unnamed appeals judge held a status hearing on the case.
In July 2009, nine years after the indictment and almost two years after his death, the government filed a notice indicating that it had received a copy of the death certificate.
On Aug. 10, 2009, the federal court ruled that he was dead and ordered the Superior Court to nullify the conviction on the grounds of the death.
According to the judgment, in cases in which a death occurs while a criminal appeal is pending, the courts usually abate (i.e. nullify) the conviction unless there is a question of restitution of funds, which was not an issue in this case.
St. Croix Superior Court Judge Brenda J. Hollar presided over the original trial of Thomas, according to the face sheet of the judgment. She was not mentioned in its text.
