So far, the judge has thrown out the affidavit from the police inspector since he had written it five months after the incident.
Also, Cahueque’s caution was thrown out because the judge believed Cahueque gave it under duress. Cahueque’s attorney, this afternoon, told us more about the case.
“What has been happening is that some day last week, a jury was in fact seleted in the trial of Aracely Cajeque following after the murder trial of three persons accused of actually killing Raylene Dyer in Roaring Creek on the 8th October, 2010. When that trial completed with all three persons walking, the trial of Aracely Cajeque was put in the hands of the jury. She is charged for three counts of betting the killing of Raylene Dyer, of soliciting killers to commit this matter. We had legal arguments to make with the judge which took some days, but the jury is back, and the jury has been hearing evidence”.
Without the caution statement, there may not be sufficient evidence to link Cahueque to the crime and so the prosecution has called Brandon Budna to the stand. Brandon Budna was one of three men accused of carrying out the actual murder of Raylene Dyer, allegedly on the request of Aracely Cahueque. However, he and the other two accused men had walked away from those charges when their confession statements were also thrown out due to inconsistencies with police procedures in obtaining those caution statements. Budna has become, as Bradley put it, the crown’s star witness
Attorney Richard “Dickie” Bradley
“The Crown’s star witness (if I could borrow that word) is currently testifying and the crown is in the process of making an application in relation to that witness. So, he has started to testify and he is saying he knows Aracely Cajeque, and he is saying some basic information in the presence of the jury and now the crown is asking the court if in fact in relation to a legal matter, can they in fact go down a particular road? So, the only person that is making link to Aracely Cajeque in this matter is, this witness”.
Attorney Richard “Dickie” Bradley: “This is an interesting legal issue that is before us and the reason why submissions are being made from the other side is that in the course of the witness testimony, the court had known if the person comes to court and the witness is in fact confirming that the has a problem that he has serious problems with his sight. So, now, the question will be if that is a bar for him to see something to say to the court, yes this is what I had seen. Has his eyesight deteriorated from October 8th 2010 until now that he is not able to say certain thingsto the jury. That is an issue that is been looked at and the Crown is ensuring to cover all basis to ensure that that impediment does not affect the their presentation of their side of the case”.
The court trial resumes tomorrow at 9:00 am.